Preamble

The House met at half-past
Two o' clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

TONGA (GIFT OF A TABLE)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:

I have received your Address praying that I will give directions that there be presented on behalf of your House a gift of a Table to the Legislative Assembly of the Kingdom of Tonga and assuring me that your House will make good the expenses attending the same.

It gave me the greatest pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax Rates

Mr. David Mitchell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now completed his consideration of the treatment to be accorded to businesses whose claims for rebate of purchase tax or excise duty upon the introduction of VAT were received after 30th April.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): The vast majority of claims were received by 30th April. However, to assist those traders who were unable to meet the time limit my right hon. Friend has authorised Customs and Excise to entertain belated claims provided it is satisfied as to their bona fides.

Mr. Mitchell: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, which will be well received particularly by those in

small businesses or those who have had ill health at stocktaking time which prevented their completing their claims on time.

Mr. Higgins: I am grateful for my Friend's remarks. Certainly the problems of ill health and of small businesses have been among the factors that we have taken into account in reaching this decision.

Mr. Joel Barnett: The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) and the Minister would have saved much time, and prevented the Minister breaking his own regulations, by voting for the Opposition's amendment instead of against it. How does the Minister justify the fact that he is now breaching a piece of legislation that he put on the statute book?

Mr. Higgins: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, it would have been quite inappropriate for us to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment. What we are now proposing does not achieve the same result.

Mr. Barnett: It is exactly the same.

Mr. Higgins: It is not the same result. It is as a result of having a limit that the vast majority of claims are in. It is appropriate that we should take account of these late claims, given that special circumstances may necessarily have arisen.
That was not the point made by the hon. Gentleman's amendment when we debated it, and we were right to vote against it.

EEC Accounting Procedures

Mr. Heffer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the resolution of the European Parliament following the Report of the EEC Assembly's Finance and Budget Committee on the loss of sums amounting to £40 million or more a year from the EEC Budget, he will now press for improvements in accounting procedures in order to prevent a recurrence of such losses.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): As we have already made clear, we want to see as effective accounting and audit procedures in the EEC as possible. The recent resolution by the European Parliament was a welcome contribution to this.

Mr. Heffer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the resolution passed at the recent session of the European Parliament urged the Commission to present an immediate report of the frequent instances of fraud which still occur in the agricultural sector and urged member States to deal with this matter? May we have a full report to the House? What action is being taken by the Government, particularly as, in the future, British taxpayers' money will be involved? Are the Government pursuing the matter with vigour and are they trying to renegotiate the common agricultural policy, which is leading to such disastrous results for the British people?

Mr. Jenkin: The Government are certainly anxious to see effective auditing and accounting procedures. Having accepted the motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder), the European Parliament decided that committees of that Parliament should give urgent consideration to the setting up of a public accounts committee. We shall wait with great interest to see what the European Parliament produces. My hon. Friend's motion would have been that much more effective if it had been supported by hon. Members of the Opposition.

Mr. Biffen: Is my hon. Friend aware that misappropriations of the magnitude referred to in the Question represent the ugly and unacceptable face of the Common Market? As, yesterday, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster assured the House that this matter would no doubt come before the Council of Ministers, why cannot we now be told, in this our national Parliament, that our Minister at the Council of Ministers will take the initiative in raising this matter?

Mr. Jenkin: It is easy enough for figures to be bandied about. This figure is £10 million less than the figure which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) included in an earlier Question.

Mr. Heffer: Tell us what it is, then.

Mr. Jenkin: The answer is that until the investigations are completed, no one is right to put any figure on it.

Mr. Jay: Surely, as British public money is now involved in these ugly and

unacceptable practices, it is the duty of the British Treasury not just to be anxious but to take active steps to see that the money is properly spent.

Mr. Jenkin: That is the duty of the Commission, and it is the duty of the European Parliament to see that the Commission does its duty in this regard. These matters are being attended to.

Mr. Marten: Does my hon. Friend recall that during the debates on the European Communities Bill this precise point was raised, and that we asked at the time whether the Expenditure Committee would be allowed to go out and investigate these matters? Will my hon. Friend please see that this matter is taken up with the European Community so that the Expenditure Committee can go to Europe and examine the use to which British money is put, to see that it is not wasted?

Mr. Jenkin: As I understand it, the sub-committee of the Expenditure Committee of this Parliament has already been to Brussels.

Mr. Brian Walden: Is the Minister aware that a month ago I put this very point to him in a rather different form? I now repeat it, in the hope of getting an answer. We want some method of arriving at ministerial accountability to this House in respect of our contributions that are being mislaid or misappropriated. Have the Government considered the point that I put to them, and are they going to do anything about it?

Mr. Jenkin: This is a matter for the Community as a whole—[Interruption.] I repeat that it is. Community funds and the Community's accounting and auditing procedures are at issue. As my right hon. Friend told the House yesterday, as indicated by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), this matter will be discussed in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Petrol (Duty)

Mr. Madel: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the price increase of petrol on 30th April, he


will use the regulator to neutralise this increase by a compensating reduction in excise duty.

Mr. Higgins: No, Sir.

Mr. Madel: As there is evidence since 30th April that the oil-producing countries are pressing for a further price increase for oil, and as the price of petrol is such a sensitive factor in the cost of living, will my hon. Friend reconsider his answer with a view to bringing down the tax on petrol?

Mr. Higgins: There is perhaps a certain inconsistency between the two points made by my hon. Friend. He will agree that the matter is not as simple as one can express in a short supplementary question. However, it would be wrong to create any expectation that commercial price increases will be automatically offset by cuts in duty. I do not believe that would be at all in our national interest.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received since 5th March 1973 requesting him to replace the duty raised by road fund licence by an equivalent increase in excise duty on petrol.

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received since 5th March asking him to replace the revenue raised by road vehicle licences by an equivalent increase in excise duty on road fuel.

Mr. Higgins: Two, Sir.

Mr. Chapman: I hope that my hon. Friend will urgently ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor earnestly to consider abolishing the road fund licence for private vehicles. If he did that and recovered the lost revenue by increasing the excise duty on petrol it would achieve certain desirable objectives. Anyone covering less than 10,000 miles a year would benefit net. The scheme would reduce unnecessary journeys and it would be a blessing to the environment.

Mr. Higgins: It will not have escaped the notice of the House that this Question is asking my right hon. Friend to do the opposite to what the previous Question was seeking, but I am afraid that he would not be able to go along with this idea either. The main effect of replacing the excise duty by increasing the duty on

petrol would be to shift taxation from private cars to commercial vehicles, which would increase the price of goods in the shops and the price of our exports, and in the present situation I do not think that would be appropriate. To bring in the equivalent revenue would require an increase in petrol and derv of 8p a gallon, which would be substantial.

Mr. Molloy: There is reasonable evidence of a lot of tax evasion going on in this respect. Will the Financial Secretary therefore consider conferring with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to seek to have a conference between the taxation authorities and the police to try to stop what is now becoming rife exploitation and cheating on the part of what would appear to be a large percentage of people who own motor cars?

Mr. Higgins: I am aware of the strength of feeling on the subject in a number of parts of the House. The question of enforcement was dealt with last week by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, and enforcement is a matter for him.

Mr. McCrindle: Does not my hon. Friend detect a certain reaction in the country against what I would call the relative fiction of the Road Fund, which it appears is used progressively for many things in addition to road works? Does he not feel that the introduction of taxation which was charged according to road use would be more consistent with other taxes in this country?

Mr. Higgins: I must give my hon. Friend the traditional Treasury answer that we would not support the view that there should be hypothecation of revenue for particular purposes. As for the effect on road use, it is important to appreciate that, although there might be some short-run impact on road use by a price increase of the order I mentioned, the evidence is that the elasticity of demand for petrol is such that the longer-term effect on the amount of road use would not be very great, and it would not be an effective way of achieving that objective.

Mr. George Cunningham: In its report on urban transport the Expenditure Committee of this House recommended that the Government should seriously examine


precisely this proposal. Does he not agree that it is contrary to social policy and sensible traffic policy these days to place a disincentive on people owning a car, and that what we really should do is to shift that disincentive to the use of the car for particular occasions?

Mr. Higgins: I understand very well what the hon. Member is saying. I do not wish to pre-judge our consideration of the views that the Expenditure Committee expressed about a further study of the shift of taxation from the annual licence to the petrol tax. Obviously it is right that we should always bear in mind recommendations made, and that we should consider them carefully. That is what we are doing.

Rating Valuation Appeals (Forms)

Miss Quennell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what authority the Inland Revenue makes charges for the supply of public forms connected with appeals against its own decisions.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I assume my hon. Friend is referring to appeals against the new rating valuation lists effective from 1st April 1973. There is no obligation on ratepayers to use the Inland Revenue forms for this purpose, and while such forms are supplied free to individual applicants, it is in accordance with normal Government policy to make a charge for bulk supplies.

Miss Quennell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He is entirely correct in saying that the recent revaluation lists have provoked some consternation among many of my constituents. Bodies such as the National Farmers Union, ratepayers' associations, residents' associations and old folks' clubs have sought through their clubs to acquire the forms, and it would be helpful in the circumstances if forms could be provided to them in bulk.

Mr. Jenkin: Of course the changes in valuation this year were much bigger than they would have been if the previous Government had not funked it in 1968. I recognise the problems to which my hon. Friend refers. Supplies of up to 50 forms are available free of charge to professional firms and bodies of that sort, but it would be contrary to the practice regarding

a large number of other forms that comply with statutory rules for the Stationery Office to make unlimited quantities freely available. We have had 53 bulk orders this year and 10,000 forms went to a large firm of surveyors. In the circumstances it is not unreasonable to make a 1p charge.

Economic Growth

Mr. Knox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his most recent estimate of the rate of growth.

Mr. Tom King: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the current rate of growth in gross domestic product; and how this compares with the average rate of growth between 1964 and 1970.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): As in the Budget forecast, around 5 per cent. per annum over the 18 months to the second half of 1974, which is more than twice the rate of growth between 1964 and 1970.

Mr. Knox: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the statement he made on Monday in no way conflicts with the Government's growth rate target of 5 per cent.? Will he further confirm that it is the Government's intention to pursue a very high growth rate over a long period to give industry the necessary confidence to invest at a much faster rate than before and so increase the rate of increase in the capacity of the economy?

Mr. Barber: The forecast of the rate of growth over the period to which I referred in the Budget Statement remains, and certainly, as I said on Monday, nothing has happened to cause me to change that forecast other than the fact that exports are doing better than I expected at the time of the Budget. As for the period beyond, I made clear on Monday that one of the principal purposes of the public expenditure changes was to ensure that we can continue to expand at a fast rate of economic growth during the period 1974–75 and beyond.

Mr. Joel Barnett: The House will have noted with interest the Chancellor's statement about growth up to the interesting date of the middle of 1974. Will he tell us a little more about his plans after that date? Instead of what he told his hon.


Friend, will he tell us whether, in making his cuts the other day, he had in mind a much lower level of growth after the middle of 1974?

Mr. Barber: I though that I had dealt with that question. Perhaps I can repeat the answer for the hon. Gentleman's benefit. One of the principal purposes of the changes in public expenditure that I announced on Monday was to ensure that we could continue with a fast rate of growth and that we did not repeat the intolerable situation that the hon. Gentleman and his party got into, when they had to slam on the brakes and had one of the most appalling rate-of-growth records of any Government in our history.

Mr. Dalyell: Are we sure that growth should be the be-all and end-all in connection with the public expenditure changes? Is not the Chancellor pennywise and pound-foolish to bring to an end Operation Eyesore, which might not be measured in growth terms but which did a great deal for Scotland and the north of England in cleaning up of the landscape and buildings?

Mr. Barber: I can quite understand Opposition Members thinking that the rate of growth of the economy, and so the prosperity of our people, is not necessarily the primary aim of government. For us, it certainly is.

Savings (Page Report)

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now received a copy of the Page Report on savings; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Barber: I have received a copy of the report. It will be published as soon as possible.

Mr. Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend accept that that will be a grave disappointment, particularly to the trustee savings banks, which were ready to introduce loans to their depositors but were stopped because of the Page Report? Does my right hon. Friend realise that the trustee savings banks are an important arm of the national savings movement? Will he please indicate when this long-delayed report will be published?

Mr. Barber: I know of my hon. Friend's particular concern. He has already told me that the report should be published as soon as possible. It covers a very wide and important field. Therefore, it is right that the Government should take proper time to consider it.

Mr. Sheldon: Is not the Chancellor aware that the continued delay in publication is causing serious concern and that there is widespread disillusionment among those people holding savings certificates, particularly those holding earlier issues, who are receiving interest at the rate of only 1½ per cent. a year? That, in effect, is a swindle on those people who are least able to protect themselves and who look to the Government for their protection. Will the Chancellor please make sure that the report is published at the earliest possible moment and not give us any excuses for putting off this important publication?

Mr. Barber: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said in the earlier part of his question. It is very important that the report should be published at the earliest possible moment.

Sir J. Rodgers: As Chairman of the Trustee Savings Bank Parliamentary Committee, I urge my right hon. Friend to see that the report is published as soon as possible. More than that, I hope that he will realise that it is the biggest of all the savings movements in the country, and that therefore he will accept the recommendations of the Page Committee and see that such things as loans to depositors are permitted as soon as possible.

Mr. Barber: I have noted my hon. Friend's urge.

Interest Rates

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to contain the level of interest rates.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: By safeguarding faster growth and by lowering inflationary expectations.

Mr. Dalyell: In this context, what is the Treasury's attitude to the management of the money supply?

Mr. Jenkin: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has frequently stated the


Treasury's attitude to the money supply. We regard the containment of the growth of the money supply as an essential arm of economic policy.

Mr. Ridley: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Bank has been preventing interest rates from falling by its policy with the discount houses? It is a policy with which I entirely agree, but it is not the answer my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jerkin: I do not accept my hon. Friend's proposition. He will have noted that on 18th May the minimum lending rate fell to 7¾ per cent. Moreover, the Bank's deposit rate has fallen to 6,¾ per cent., and the base rate to 8½ per cent. I should have thought that those were encouraging moves in the direction that my hon. Friend would like to see.

Mr. Healey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the major factor in producing the rise in interest rates, which falls so cruelly on young couples wanting to buy a house, is the Government's decision to finance their expenditure by borrowing rather than raising taxation and the policy of competition and credit control in the banking system?

Mr. Jenkin: We know that the right hon. Gentleman's policy is always to increase taxes. It is this Government's policy to cut taxation. It is not the size of the borrowing requirement that determines the level of interest rates; it is the manner in which the money is raised. My right hon. Friend has made abundantly clear that he intends to raise the great bulk of the money from non-bank sources.

£ Sterling (Value)

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, on the basis of the General Index of Retail Prices, is the purchasing power of the £ sterling now, taking it as 100p on 18th June 1970.

Mr. Higgins: Taking the interal purchasing power of the £ sterling as 100p in June 1970, its value in April 1973 is estimated to be 79p.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that scandalous admission that the Tory pound is now worth only 15s. 10d., in old money, will come as

a bombshell to millions of families frantically struggling to make ends meet, and that the only thing that will boom for them is their cost of living?

Mr. Higgins: For families trying to make ends meet, surely, the relevant factor is what is happening to the real standard of living. Under the present Government that has been rising very rapidly, even after allowing for the increase in prices. It is my right hon. Friend's belief that we must continue on a rapid rate of economic growth, in marked contrast to the hon. Gentleman's party, which did nothing but stultify growth. What is essential is to take an overall view, and on that basis the Government's record is good.

Mr. Grylls: Taking that reply into account, will my hon. Friend tell us the extra purchasing power in the retirement pension over the same period, since 1970?

Mr. Higgins: We have made a number of increases in the retirement pension and have now undertaken to make annual reviews. By October pensions will be 55 per cent. higher than when we came to power. After allowing for price increases, that will still give a bigger increase in living standards than that of the population as a whole. That shows the priority we give to improving the standard of living of pensioners.

Mr. Healey: But does not the Minister accept that the appalling figures he has just announced represent a total failure by the Government to carry out a responsibility that the Chancellor personally accepted not so long ago to contain the rise in prices? Do not the figures that the hon. Gentleman has just quoted, following the figures he gave last month and the month before, show that in fact the cost of living has been increasing faster under what he humorously calls the prices standstill than before the standstill was introduced? As we are now in phase 2, and are liable to see big increases in the price of manufactured goods following the increase in food and house prices that we saw in phase 1, what sort of phase 3 do the Government now propose to introduce?

Mr. Higgins: As to the overall position I believe that it is true to say that the determination to beat inflation that the Government have shown in the standstill,


and are showing in phase 2, has been reflected by the public at large. Much of the increase in the all-items index in April was due to sharp and unavoidable increases in the price of seasonal food, particularly tomatoes and vegetables. We have always made it clear during the standstill period that some items will go up in price, particularly imports. They are increases which the country as a whole cannot avoid paying. Apart from that, I believe that it is true to say that the policy has been successful. We are determined to make it succeed, but we must combine it with a faster rate of economic growth and higher real incomes. I think that that is the right approach.

Competition and Credit Control

Mr. Hordern: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the operation of the policy of competition and credit control; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Since September 1971 there has been a welcome increase in competition and innovation in the banking sector. This has led to structural changes which have complicated the interpretation of monetary statistics. But the new system of credit control, though no doubt capable of further refinement, has throughout been operated flexibly both in conditions requiring monetary ease and in circumstances where monetary restraint is more appropriate.

Mr. Hordern: Does my hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has said on the previous Question, it is not the system of competition and credit control that itself feeds inflation but the growth of the money supply? Will my hon. Friend say when he expects the rate of growth of the money supply to diminish?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend will have seen the figures which were published on Monday, which show that the increase in the M3 measurement was only three-quarters of 1 per cent. That represents a substantial slowing down of the rates earlier in the year.

Tax Evasion (Transfer of Assets)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will

take additional steps to eliminate or reduce tax evasion by the transfer of assets to territories outside the sterling area.

Mr. Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that the Treasury has been informed that the word "outside" in the Question should be "inside". That would include the Cayman Islands.

Mr. Barber: The Inland Revenue, as a matter of course, keeps under review action necessary to counter tax evasion devices.

Mr. Hamilton: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the Lonrho inquiry will cover the activities of the Yeoman Investment Company in the Bahamas, the Swiss subsidiary called Borma, and the nine Drayton Corporation Trusts of which Mr. Angus Ogilvy is the chairman? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the constitutional position will be if the inspectors seek to obtain information from a member of the Royal Family who is heavily implicated in this rather squalid affair?

Mr. Barber: My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs has already announced that an inquiry is to take place under Section 165 of the Companies Act 1948. We must await the outcome of that inquiry. I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the point made by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).

Mr. Peter Rees: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that references to the Cayman Islands by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition are a malodorous red herring, and that the existing law is adequate to deal with the taxation of directors and employees in such circumstances?

Mr. Barber: As I understand the position, the place of payment of remuneration will not affect a person's liability to United Kingdom tax unless the whole of the duties of the employment are performed abroad. As I think is known, only amounts received or remitted here during the currency of the employment are then taxable. In any case, exchange control consent would now be required to retain funds in the Cayman


Islands. That would not be given unless a need were established.

Mr. Joel Barnett: Some people are finding the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister about our capitalist society a little strange. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what level of tax avoidance would be pleasant and acceptable?

Mr. Barber: I have already made it clear that in terms of tax avoidance and evasion the Inland Revenue, as a matter of course, will make a full investigation into the possible use of artifical devices to minimise tax liability. I have said that I am considering whether further action is necessary.

Dependent Relative Allowance

Miss Fookes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to alter the basis on which a dependent relative allowance is granted from a sum equal to the basic retirement pension to that of subsistence level as calculated for supplementary benefits.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: No, Sir. While I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, I do not think it would be justified.

Miss Fookes: Is that not a somewhat penny-pinching attitude? Surely no one is expected to live only on his retirement pension? Would it not be more realistic if we had it brought up to subsistence level?

Mr. Jenkin: The allowance is available to a taxpayer who has a relative who is dependent on him. Over many years it has been the view of successive Governments that the level of the basic retirement pension is the measurement of dependency. In Clause 12 of this year's Finance Bill we have taken powers to formalise that and to allow the amount to be altered as the pension is altered. This year the level of a dependant's income can rise to the pension level of £378 a year before the allowance begins to be lost. The level will be allowed to go up to £478 a year before the allowance is wholly lost.

Mr. Brian Walden: Will the hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that, sadly enough, millions of people have to live on the basic retirement pension alone?

Mr. Jenkin: Nobody has to live only on the basic retirement pension, because he is entitled to apply for supplementary benefit.

Dame Irene Ward: Does my hon. Friend agree that an investigation into the whole issue would be very acceptable? Further, does he agree that it is not a very good idea to say that because something has existed for about 500 years it must be right? I know how interested the Government are in trying to do the best they can. They have done a great deal more than any other Government have ever done, but that does not mean that we cannot go a little further. Can we have a little agreement that if cases are put up they will be properly examined, and that if they are well founded the Treasury will act?

Mr. Jenkin: I think that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. No Government have shown themselves more ready than this one to break from hallowed Inland Revenue traditions in relation to tax reform. For that my right hon. Friend deserves every congratulation. We will take note of what has been said.

Mr. Healey: The House will have been startled to hear what the Chief Secretary said a moment ago. If it is not the case that the Government do not expect anybody to live on retirement pension alone, why do not the Government raise the retirement pension to a level at which people can be expected to live?

Mr. Jenkin: We have raised the retirement pension more in our two and a half years of office than the previous Labour Government did in the whole of their six years.

EEC Information Budget

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether all items in the EEC Information Budget are available for scrutiny by him.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Jay: If the Minister is familiar with all these facts, will he tell the House whether the report is correct that secret retaining fees are paid to undisclosed persons out of the Information Budget?

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman continues to make anonymous


accusations of this sort. If the right hon. Gentleman will supply me with the details of the irregularities to which he is seeking to draw attention we will have them investigated. Until we have particulars of the irregularities that the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to investigate we cannot take the matter further.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the European Parliament has increasing power over the budget of the Commission? If the Labour Party sent representatives to that Parliament, does my hon. Friend agree that they could raise the question at that forum if they considered that it should be raised?

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Jenkin: The only thing that puzzles me is why that eminently sensible statement should be greeted with jeers from the Opposition.

Mr. Brian Walden: Will the Minister now return to the point that was put to him earlier? If the information is supplied to him will he make himself accountable for the transactions that go on? Or is it pointless to put the information to him? Does he intend to shield behind the claim that this is a matter for the European authorities?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman can hardly have listened to my reply to his right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I asked the right hon. Gentleman to let me have the information on which he bases his accusations.

International Monetary System

Mr Lamont: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the reform of the international monetary system.

Mr. Barber: At the March meeting of the Committee of Twenty, deputies were given instructions on an accelerated programme of work and the preparation of a draft outline of reform in which major issues of principle would be identified for decision. Deputies are meeting all this week in Washington to push ahead with this work.

Mr. Lamont: Does my right hon. Friend agree that had it not been for the

floating of the major currencies of the world the recent pressure on the dollar and soaring gold prices would have led to a major international currency crisis? Is it not highly desirable that this new flexibility in the international monetary system should continue as a permanent feature?

Mr. Barber: There are arguments for and against the proposition put by my hon. Friend. I am certain that we must push ahead—and I know that I have the backing of all right hon. and hon. Members who have studied these matters—with the programme for the reform of the monetary system. It was because, at the ministerial meeting in Washington in March, I felt that we were not making the progress that we should be making that I put forward in some detail proposals for a specific plan of work. These proposals are being considered in Washington this week by the deputies. I very much hope that it will not be too long before we are able to have another ministerial meeting, when we shall be confronted with the issues on which we shall have to take decisions.

Dr. Gilbert: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on continually paying lip service to the idea of fixed exchange rates and in practice doing nothing about them. Has he any evidence that this period of floating exchange rates has produced any damage whatever to British trade or investment?

Mr. Barber: The question whether a particular currency should float in particular circumstances, or whether there should be a fixed exchange rate, is a matter on which there are varying opinions. All I can tell the hon. Gentleman, as I have done before, is that the overwhelming majority of Finance Ministers throughout the world believe that the new monetary system should be based on fixed but adjustable parities.

EEC Agricultural Prices

Mr. Deakins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the additional cost to United Kingdom balance of payments by 1st January 1978 of the increased EEC agricultural prices agreed recently.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Very small.

Mr. Deakins: Is the hon. Gentleman any longer worried about the balance of


payments costs of our entry into the EEC, both during and after the transitional period?

Mr. Jenkin: That goes much wider than the Question, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the effects upon our balance of payments of the settlement reached by the Council of Agricultural Ministers earlier this month—in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture played such a notable part —will be very small.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: Does not my hon. Friend agree that whatever the effects of the recent settlement may be on the balance of payments in 1978, a much greater effect will be had by the relative expansion of British agriculture?

Mr. Jenkin: I entirely agree.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Government publish as a Green Paper for discussion their proposals for the reform of agricultural policy in the EEC prior to the Commission's publication of its document in October?

Mr. Jenkin: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Pensioners (Part-time Employment)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received seeking relief for retirement pensioners from taxation when following part-time employment.

Mr. Higgins: This suggestion is made quite often but I do not think it would be right to single out these pensioners for special treatment.

Mr. Molloy: But the Treasury has indeed singled out a certain class of people for special treatment. Bearing in mind the dramatic drop in the value of the pound and the astounding increase in the cost of food, the Chancellor has enabled the well-off to deal with this serious situation by giving them massive tax reductions. Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that old-age pensioners are also entitled to some consideration? Will he not dismiss them so cavalierly and so lightly?

Mr. Higgins: I do not think that that arises out of the Question, but, as I said

earlier, the record of the present Government on pensions provision in general is one of which we can be proud.

Mr. Costain: Will my hon. Friend give special consideration to the case where the pension of an older husband suffers if he has a younger wife who is employed?

Mr. Higgins: I shall give consideration to that point.

Mr. Pavitt: Will the hon. Gentleman consider not only the financial matter but the medical matter? Is he aware that we have a highly increasing cost in geriatrics and that one of the ways to keep people out of hospital after they reach pensionable age is to give them useful and gainful employment and keep them in the community? The suggestion in the Question might save the Treasury money in the long run.

Mr. Higgins: There are conflicting views on the question whether, or to what extent, it is right to encourage people to go on working beyond a certain point and what fiscal measures should be taken to that effect, but the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that in September 1971 the earnings rule starting point was raised from £7·50 to £9·30 and that in October 1972, as a result of the National Insurance (Amendment) Act, brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Coombes), the proportionate band was increased from £2 to £4.

Government Expenditure

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the main forms of Government expenditure per head of the population of the United Kingdom per week; and how the amounts have changed in recent years.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate these in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the small posters which used to be issued by successive Governments giving, on the one hand, the sources of the national income and, on the other hand, the sources and means of expenditure of the national income? Will


he draw up a poster relating to 1970 and 1973 and consider issuing such posters in future, so that large numbers of people who are not accustomed to reading complicated balance sheets can gain some grasp of these problems?

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I shall consider that helpful suggestion. I am sure that people would be very eager to recognise

WEEKLY PUBLIC EXPENDITURE PER HEAD IN COST TERMS






pence at estimated 1972–73 prices*






1969–70
1970–71
1971–72 provisional
1972–73 estimate


Defence Budget
…
…
…
98
102
104
103


Other Military defence
…
…
…
4
2
2
2


Overseas aid
…
…
…
8
8
8
9


EEC and other external relations
…
…
…
5
5
5
7


Agriculture, fisheries and forestry
…
…
…
17
16
18
21


Research Councils etc.
…
…
…
4
4
5
5


Trade, industry and employment:
…
…
…






Investment grants
…
…
…
26
24
18
13


Other
…
…
…
27
27
30
48


Nationalised industries capital expenditure
…
…
61
67
60
63


Roads
…
…
…
30
34
32
36


Surface transport
…
…
…
9
8
8
10


Housing
…
…
…
49
49
45
51


Miscellaneous local services
…
…
…
34
37
40
44


Law and Order
…
…
…
24
26
28
31


Arts
…
…
…
1
1
1
1


Education and libraries
…
…
…
108
114
120
126


Health and personal social services
…
…
…
88
95
98
104


Social security
…
…
…
167
164
170
179


Financial administration
…
…
…
11
10
11
15


Common services
…
…
…
8
9
10
11


Miscellaneous services
…
…
…
3
4
4
4


Total (excluding debt interest)
…
…
…
782
806
820
885


Source: Cmnd. 5178, Table 2A, with adjustments; Registrar's General, mid-year population estimates.


* Including relative price effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA (SANCTIONS)

Mr. Raphael Tuck: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to convene a meeting of Heads of Governments in the United Nations to resolve the problem of sanctions against Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): No, Sir. I do not think such a meeting is called for. The Security Council has just considered a report to the United Nations Sanctions Supervisory Committee which made recommendations about sanctions. Her Majesty's Government played their full part in the work of the committee.

Mr. Tuck: Why is the Prime Minister's approach to this problem so weak-kneed?

how much, for example, expenditure on housing and social services has risen over the last four years. Spending on social security per head of population is 7 per cent. up, on education 17 per cent. up, and on the health services 18 per cent. up. All these figures are in real terms. It is not a bad record.

Following is the information:

Does he think that his predecessor, Mr. Disraeli, would have been guilty of such spineless inactivity? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman call a meeting of the Governments concerned and make clear to them this country's determined disapproval of the violations of sanctions, such as the import of chrome by the United States, instead of allowing them to ride roughshod over United Nations policy and vitiate the whole purpose of sanctions?

The Prime Minister: This matter is being handled at the United Nations by the Security Council, which is the right forum. We ourselves have submitted to the United Nations over 170 notes about the breakage of sanctions, and in this country there have been 18 successful prosecutions. If the record of other


countries were like ours, the hon. Gentleman would have no cause for criticism.

Mr. William Clark: Is it not ridiculous for the United Nations to pass resolutions when this country is about the only one conforming to the sanctions?

The Prime Minister: One of the difficulties about the resolutions brought forward was that they went further than had been agreed in the Sanctions Committee. We could have supported them as far as that, but when it was sought to extend them to Portugal and South Africa it was not possible for us to support such a change.

Mr. Healey: What action does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take against those involved in the Lonrho affair who are reported to have evaded sanctions through mining companies for which Lonrho is responsible? Does not he agree that this is one of the more unpleasant and unacceptable faces of capitalism to which he referred recently?

The Prime Minister: Any examples brought to our notice, either by the right hon. Gentleman or by anyone else, will be fully investigated.

Oral Answers to Questions — MOTOR VEHICLE TAXATION

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he will transfer responsibility for the taxing of motor vehicles to the Treasury.

The Prime Minister: The Treasury is already responsible for the level of motor vehicle taxation. The Department of the Environment is responsible for collection of the vehicle excise duty. I have no plans to change this arrangement.

Mr. Molloy: That being so, those Departments are responsible for not doing anything to try to arrest the present evasion of this tax. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not merely is a loss of revenue involved, with annoyance to the ordinary honest citizen and the bringing of the law into disrepute, but that the police and the taxing authorities have told me that there is need to reform the association that exists between them, so that this evasion can be successfully stopped? Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared at least to consider the evidence

available and see whether he can recommend some sort of conference between the taxing authorities and the police to bring this situation to an end?

The Prime Minister: I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in wishing to stop evasion of this kind, but he was told by my hon. Friend recently that this is a problem particularly of London—in which the hon. Gentleman is concerned —and that 150 extra staff are being recruited in order to deal with the problem of evasion. When the process of moving licensing to the new computer at Swansea has been completed next year, it will be possible to have a much more rapid follow-up of cases of evasion of licensing.

Mr. Sydney Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Government are considering abolishing the road fund licence and raising the revenue lost by increasing the excise duty on petrol? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if this were done, quite apart from dealing with evasion it would mean that people would be dissuaded from making unnecessary journeys?

The Prime Minister: I know that this proposition has been put forward from time to time and has been examined. It is not the Government's intention to do this.

Mr. George Cunningham: When the Prime Minister is considering tax evasion, will he also ascertain why Ministers do not pay tax on the free houses with which they are supplied?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that has anything to do with motor vehicles.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH AMERICA

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister whether he plans to seek to visit any South American country.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.

Mr. Lamont: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the countries of South America, in terms of both needs and opportunities, are of increasing importance politically and economically? Does he not further agree that, although


in some South American countries per capita incomes are among the lowest in the world, South America has had only a small proportion of British aid? Will he take steps to ensure that the growing importance of South American countries is fully reflected in our trade and aid policies?

The Prime Minister: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend has said about the importance of South America to us. Exports to South America have more than doubled since 1967. In 1972 they were 25 per cent. higher than in 1970. I am quite prepared to examine the point that my hon. Friend has made. As for trade affairs, our largest trade promotion in 1974 will be in South America—in Sao Paulo.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR SECRETS

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with President Nixon about the question of the sharing by the United Kingdom with France of nuclear secrets acquired from the United States of America under the Anglo-American Treaty of 1958.

The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to reveal details of my confidential discussions with President Nixon.

Mr. Dalyell: Are we being inhibited by the Americans in this matter?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend confirm or deny the Press report that both he and President Pompidou turned a cold shoulder to President Nixon's idea of the European summit conference?

The Prime Minister: That is certainly not true. What we did was to discuss the proposals put forward in Dr. Kissinger's speech, which concerned Atlantic defence, trade, monetary reform, and so on. We also discussed what we thought were possible means of dealing with these matters, since one of them concerns the Atlantic alliance, another the GATT, another the IMF and another two the European Community. We had preliminary discussions on the question how

we could bring these together or, alternatively, discuss each in its own forum with the appropriate group. We also discussed what sort of statement it might be possible to make as a result of these discussions.

Mr. Healey: Does the Prime Minister not agree that any attempt, particularly at this time, to set up an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent would impose grave strains on the unity of NATO and, indeed, the European Community, while threatening the growing and welcome détente between NATO and the Warsaw Pact Powers?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has always had his views on this. He knows that I do not accept them. I have always told the House quite publicly that this is something for the future.

Mr. Hastings: In view of the lamentable lack of men for the defence of West Europe, does my right hon. Friend not agree that nuclear defence in general becomes more important?

The Prime Minister: I think my hon. Friend was asking whether I agreed that conventional forces become more important—[HON. MEMBERS: "The other way round."] The American nuclear power is committed to Europe. There is general agreement that the European Powers ought to play their full part in providing conventional forces.

Mr. Atkinson: In view of the Prime Minister's answer about the European summit, why does he remain the only leader in Europe who is still hostile to the Soviet Union'?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is not entirely accurate in what he has said. First, I am not hostile to the Soviet Union. As I recently reminded another gathering, it was the British Conservative Government who worked with the American Government to bring about the partial test ban treaty, which was the first move towards détente between East and West. It was the British Conservative Government who first gave major credits to the Soviet Union. That was when I was at the Board of Trade in 1964. In all these matters a British Conservative Government have always taken the lead.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRESIDENT NIXON

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Prime Minister whether he will request President Nixon to cancel his forthcoming official visit to the United Kingdom.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. President Nixon knows he is always welcome here, but he has not yet announced the dates on which he proposes to visit Europe.

Mr. Kaufman: Ought not the Prime Minister to inform President Nixon that the man who has allowed the White House to be turned into a base for corruption of the democratic process is scarcely acceptable in Europe as an exponent of the principles of international democracy?

The Prime Minister: The basis of my answer is quite clear. It is not for me to comment on the internal affairs of the United States.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Without prejudging what is now happening in Washington, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not the case that a fair judgment on President Nixon must include a tribute to his courage in steadfastly continuing the work begun by President Kennedy in upholding the Vietnamese people against Communist aggression?

The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government have always expressed that view. We also welcome the fact that President Nixon has been able to make arrangements under which American forces are being withdrawn from Vietnam.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: With due respect to what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) has said, is it not the case that at the moment the Prime Minister is hardly in a position to throw stones at the President of the United States?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND AND WALES (DEVOLUTON)

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on devolution for Scotland and Wales.

The Prime Minister: Our policy is that, within the framework of a united country, power should be more widely devolved. Further proposals will be brought forward in the light of the report of the Commission on the Constitution and of local government reform.

Mr. Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the Green Paper which is to be published after the Kilbrandon Report has been considered will relate to devolution for Scotland or proposals for devolution throughout the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: That is a matter on which a decision has yet to be taken. We have not received the Kilbrandon report. We must be given the opportunity of studying it when it is published which may not be for some time yet. Then we can consider the best way of putting forward proposals. They will be in the form of a Green Paper.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this firm commitment to devolution will be widely welcomed in the Conservative Party? Do I understand that we shall have not only the Green Paper but proposals in the form of a Bill dealing with devolution for Scotland? This has long been promised.

The Prime Minister: We have always said that we will take into consideration the report of the Commission on the Constitution and will wait until the reform of local government in Scotland has been achieved before making further proposals. After all, we are the only party that has produced detailed proposals for devolution for Scotland. They were produced by a most distinguished committee. It is surely right that we should produce the Green Paper first, and let the House debate it and public opinion consider it before we take further steps in the form of a Bill.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend not agree, now we have provided, through the European Community. a framework for dealing with those proposals with which national Governments are too small to deal, that it ought to be possible for people to have some arrangement so that they can deal on a much more local basis with local affairs?

The Prime Minister: In broad principle, that is true. The problem is always to work out the machinery of devolution which allows people power to participate and at the same time to work out the organisation which is able to meet their needs, taking into account the demands of the community.

Mr. James Hamilton: When the Government publish the Green Paper will they take into consideration the views of the majority of Scottish Conservative Members on this issue? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that when he takes a decision it will be beneficial to the economy of Scotland, bearing in mind the hopeless situation in which we now find ourselves?

The Prime Minister: Of course we will take account of views expressed in the House. I hardly think that the hon. Gentleman has much to support his last accusation.

HOUSING (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Fowler: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place a copy of his public speech on housing on 7th May at Sidcup in the Library.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave on my behalf on Tuesday 22nd May to my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Wyn Roberts) and others.—[Vol. 857, c. 221.]

Mr. Fowler: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does not it make nonsense of the Opposition's claim to represent the interests of owner-occupiers, when thousands of council tenants are being prevented by the policy of Labour-controlled councils from buying their own homes?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I absolutely agree.

Mr. John Fraser: If the Prime Minister wants to see better housing in London, will he examine the scandalous situation in which local authorities have to wait between 9 and 12 months for compulsory orders to be confirmed upon empty houses and land urgently needed for rehousing in inner London?

The Prime Minister: Every endeavour has been made to speed up the time taken to deal with compulsory purchase orders. I am prepared to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to reconsider this matter. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific instances, perhaps he will let me have particulars of them.

MINISTERIAL RESIGNATIONS

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
On 9th April last the Security Service reported to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and to me that police inquiries on other matters had disclosed allegations about the association of a prostitute with a Minister. We instructed the Security Service to satisfy themselves as far as possible on the basis of the limited information then available that there was no indication of a danger to national security. Meantime, police inquiries continued.
On 13th April it was reported that the Minister alleged to be involved was my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Lord Lambton). It also became clear that there was the possibility of involvement of dangerous drugs, which might lead to criminal charges. For this reason there could be no question of my informing my hon. Friend of the allegations that were being made.
The police inquiries were maintained, but proved to be protracted and difficult. In the first few days of May, however, it was reported to us that further information had been received which added significantly to the circumstantial detail of the allegations. At this stage also a number of other people said to be involved with prostitutes were named. These included my right hon. Friend Lord Jellicoe. It was expected that inquiries known to be pending would produce further information. The Security Service were however instructed at once to examine the new information received, and to satisfy themselves that there was still no indication of danger to security. This they did.
Meanwhile the police inquiries were continuing but were not producing significant further information. On 15th May my right hon. and learned Friend the


Attorney-General was told of the information so far obtained. On 16th May he decided formally to instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions, who in turn instructed the police to report to him without day on the possibility of obtaining evidence on which criminal proceedings might be based. On 18th May we were told that, subject to one or two further inquiries, the police expected to interview my hon. Friend on 21st May.
That interview took place, with the results which the House knows. My hon. Friend immediately tendered his resignation. He has made a number of statements about the circumstances, on which it would be wrong for me to comment; and he has been served with summonses for offences under the Dangerous Drugs Act.
After my return from Paris on 22nd May, I thought it right to acquaint my right hon. Friend Lord Jellicoe with the allegations affecting him, making it clear that they did not involve any suggestion of criminal offences. In his reply yesterday he told me that the allegations had some justification, in that he had had some casual affairs of this kind. He assured me that there was no question of any breach of any law by him, that he had not been subjected to pressure or blackmail of any kind, and that no danger to national security arose. None the less he thought it right to tender his resignation, for the reasons which he has explained in a letter which has been published. I have accepted it.
The allegations published yesterday in a German magazine referred to a top-level British diplomat. There have also been Press reports that members of other public services are involved. The House will know that the magazine concerned has now stated that the individual in question was my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. On the information available to me—and I have been kept fully informed—I can tell the House that there are no grounds for supposing that any other Minister or any member of the public service is involved.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have been concerned from the outset to ensure that the security of the State is protected without prejudice to the conduct of inquiries into possible

criminal offences. At each stage we have instructed the Security Service to examine the security implications, and at each stage they have been able to assure us that there are no indications of danger to national security.
None the less, I think that the House will expect that this matter should be submitted to independent scrutiny. Subject to consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, I therefore propose to invite the Security Commission to verify that there has been no breach of security as a result of the incidents described in this statement. The Chairman of the Commission has told me that they would be ready to receive a reference of this kind.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The House will have noted the right hon. Gentleman's statement and will want to study it in a mood of deep gravity. I think we all recognise how deeply distressing and painful it has been for the right hon. Gentleman to make this statement to the House.
It is not for the House to discuss the background to the resignations, but it is right to note the speed and the sense of responsibility shown by the two Ministers in the light of that background in immediately resigning and, indeed, in doing so with dignity.
As the right hon. Gentleman has recognised, the House and the country will demand the fullest inquiry into all facts bearing on national security, not only on whether any breach of security took place but on whether there was any risk or danger to security. The House and the country will wish to know why clear and accepted security procedures seem not to have operated on this occasion and what is the position of the Ministers concerned when, following the changes made in security procedures by successive Governments after 1963, responsibility for security within individual Departments is placed uniquely on those Departments and on the individual Minister concerned.
As I expected he might, the right hon. Gentleman has proposed a reference to the Security Commission and, in accordance with the procedures adopted by successive Governments, he has intimated that there will be the usual consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.


He was able to tell me only a few minutes ago that this was to happen—and I understand this fully. I undertake that for my part these discussions will be utterly constructive. I hope that this will not be misunderstood. It does not mean that there will be any carve up between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. He knows that I am as anxious as he is that this matter shall be fully investigated, and we shall be concerned that it is.
As we shall not have further opportunity in the House for a week or two, perhaps I should say that my immediate reaction is to ask whether the Prime Minister has fully considered the alternatives. Has he considered an inquiry by Privy Councillors, which might be appropriate in these circumstances? I am sure that he has considered a tribunal under the 1921 Act, and I am equally sure that that is not the most commendable way of dealing with this.
The right hon. Gentleman has decided on reference to the Security Commission, and I shall be glad to enter into consultations with him. He will recognise that all the previous work of the Security Commission has been on a different type of case. The Commission has dealt mainly with cases—originally after conviction but subsequently the procedures were altered—in which a serving officer or a civil servant has handed over to another country, for money or for other reasons, vitally important national defence secrets. This inquiry will not be of that kind and the Security Commission will be tackling a different kind of problem.
Therefore I put forward merely for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration, although we shall discuss it together, first a question about the membership of the Security Commission, which is, I think, rightly tailored to fit the kind of inquiry it had in the past, and whether it will be necessary to change the membership somewhat for this inquiry, in view of the sensitivity of the issues. It is arguable that perhaps some senior Privy Councillors respected in this House might mission for the inquiry. I do not press that today.
Secondly, the House and the country will insist on the utmost openness in piece of machinery which has been possibly be added to the Security Com-

the inquiry itself cannot be held in the open because of the security matters possibly involved. But I think that at least those who are responsible for the inquiry—and the right hon. Gentleman can use his influence in this direction—will recognise that we all have the right to insist on the fullest possible report. This should not be a report of the kind that we normally have had from the Security Commission. It should be one in which all issues relevant to the terms of reference—though not all the wider background—are fully discussed and reported upon so that the whole country may be told about and we hope fully reassured on these anxieties which have led to the establishment of the inquiry.
We quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman has had to prepare his statement with great speed, and we recognise that he was concerned to report to the House before we adjourned for the recess and not to defer the matter until our return. It is therefore all the more essential that we and he should regard his statement as being open to reconsideration. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to my proposals, and I do not press him for an answer to them today.

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. He referred to the fact that apparently security procedures had not been carried out. I remind him that it was the Security Service which brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself, as I said, on the early evening of 9th April, within a very short time, what at that time were allegations which were coming to their notice. The Security Service themselves acted immediately in this situation and, as I described, they reported regularly and received instructions on each occasion there was any fresh development.
Dealing with the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I gave consideration to other means of inquiry and, like him, I rejected the possibility of a 1921 tribunal, and probably the whole House will agree about that. It seemed to me that what was in favour of the Security Commission was that it is an established piece of machinery. It is a detailed knowledge of security questions. operated by both Governments. It has a the matter of this inquiry. Obviously


It is used to probing and questioning about such matters and then forming its judgments. Its reports are published. Both the right hon. Gentleman and I, as Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition in our respective capacities, in different ways have operated the procedure successfully. It is understood that nothing is excluded unless the Commission refers to a matter of the highest security importance.
I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's proposals, and we can discuss them. I wanted the House to know the reason why I proposed to ask Lord Diplock whether he would be prepared to take a reference of this kind.

Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. But in view of the importance of this issue, may I pick up one point to which he referred? When I referred to a possible breakdown of security procedures, the right hon. Gentleman said that was answered by the fact that the Security Service were themselves responsible for picking up the possible dangers to security. I do not deny that, and we know the great efficiency of the service. I had in mind the departmental procedures which have been introduced. They seem prima facie not to have worked properly. This is not the appropriate moment to go into these matters, but I should not like the right hon. Gentleman's reply to be taken as a total answer to the anxieties that I have expressed.

The Prime Minister: I was glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said. I would not commit myself to accept what he said about departmental procedures. This is a matter which the Security Commission can examine.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be sympathy for any Prime Minister faced with this very difficult situation? There are two aspects —the security and the personal. Dealing with the security aspect, the right hon. Gentleman has acted with the speed and the thoroughness that we have come to expect of all Prime Ministers in this country in regard to security matters, certainly since the war. Since I understand that the discussions about the details of the Commission are to be carried on between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, may I ask

whether the Commission will be investigating merely the matters now known to see whether security is involved, or will the Commission go further and satisfy itself that there are no other matters which may come to light? It is much better that there is a clean bill of health rather than a continuation of rumours.
On the purely personal side, does the Prime Minister agree that, whatever may be the anger and however much close colleagues may feel that they have been let down, and whatever may be the reactions of individual Members, two Ministers who have given great public service find their careers in ruins? Would not it be better now that we should leave them, subject to whatever other courses may be outside our control, to draw on such sources of courage and loyalty as are open to them so that they may try to recreate lives for themselves in the future?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. and noble Friend and my hon. Friend will appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said.
As for the Security Commission, it will be able to examine what has happened in this case about security in order to satisfy itself and to give the view of an independent body experienced in these matters to the House and the country about the security situation which has been reported to me as Prime Minister on the occasions which I have described.
I should remind the House that police inquiries into other aspects of this matter are still continuing. Should anything be brought to light from those inquiries, naturally the Security Service will be informed at the same time and will itself take any necessary further action. If that happens it will be my duty to inform the House.

Sir H. d'Avigdor Goldsmid: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the robust and straightforward manner in which this disagreeable matter has been handled will earn him the gratitude not only of this House but of the people of this country? May I add, further, that those of us who remember the events of 10 years ago—and I do not think that we need much reminding of those events—recall that the terms of reference of any further inquiry are very important?


Although we agree that security issues must come first and cannot be subordinated to personal considerations, we should avoid the temptation which will be put in our way, as it was 10 years ago, to indulge in personal inquiries which have no bearing on security matters.

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. The Security Commission will rightly be dealing with security matters. All aspects of other matters are in the hands of the police. It is for the police to make their decisions and to discuss with the Director of Public Prosecutions and if necessary with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General any police action which has to be taken.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: May I congratulate the Prime Minister upon taking a course which avoids a public inquiry into these matters, for the very simple reason that they are matters which so far have produced no evidence of a leak of security and which relate only to the personal conduct of two human beings. Although I deplore deeply the degradation of human relationships by sex or drugs, I deplore more the sacrifice of human beings by a public inquiry for the purpose of journalistic or political gain. If we had responded to that call we would have had cause to be ashamed of ourselves. I am glad that the Prime Minister has taken the course that he has, and I hope that in future the public will feel that in matters of this kind they have no right to a public inquiry or, indeed, to know what is the private life of a Member of Parliament where that private life does not impinge upon his public duty.

The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. The position is as he described it, but I think it right to offer to the House and the country the objective and independent view of the Security Commission.

Mr. Hastings: Can my right hon. Friend say anything more about the international aspects of this affair? There have been a number of reports in the newspapers here and abroad. Is it not an acknowledged fact that certain foreign Communist Powers hold as an objective the destruction of the integrity, if not the existence, of the British political system? Can he give us an assurance that if there

is the slightest evidence of the involvement of a foreign Power or a foreign secret service the House will be given a full disclosure?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give that assurance to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Abse: Although it may be expressing a very minority view, would the Prime Minister note that some of us look with distaste upon the frenetic zeal in initiating inquiries which may assuage the lascivious attitudes of a prurient Press but, judging by past experience 10 years ago, do nothing for security but merely give a Roman holiday.
Secondly, would the Prime Minister note that in a House such as ours, an intimate House in which the life-styles of hon. Members are, or should be, known to those in authority, there are some of us who will not acquit him of personal responsibility, since it is on his judgment that he selects those who serve in sensitive areas—which, whatever the talents those men may have and which could be deployed elsewhere, are areas in which there should be scrutiny, and that some of us do not regard this as an occasion for congratulating the Prime Minister but as one on which we challenge his judgment?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is quite entitled to take his own view. I have done my utmost to ensure that the security of the State is safeguarded. We have taken all measures to ensure that and we have received every assurance that that has been done. I am now offering the independent action of the Security Commission in order to examine that and to report to the House and to the country.

Mr. Paget: There is one thing I do not entirely follow in the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He said that reports were made to him as to the private life of two of his Ministers. He inquired whether that in any way impinged on security and the security authorities reported that it did not. What, then, was the occasion for any further inquiry?

The Prime Minister: It was that the police were inquiring into this whole matter to see whther there was a case for a criminal prosecution. These inquiries were going on all through this


period I have mentioned since the evening on which the security forces informed me of the fact, and these inquiries continue today. Therefore it was not possible for me, as Prime Minister, to see those who were the subject of police inquiries, because it might then have been said that I was interfering with the course of justice. Nor was it possible for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to do that. So it was right that the police inquiries into this matter should continue and at the same time that the Security Service should examine the matter thoroughly and continuously from that point of view.

Mr. Harold Wilson: On the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) concerning stories in the Press about international ramifications—and as far as I can tell these stories were not primarily Communist but were by a rather lucrative private enterprise firm in a number of countries—if the stories are true, there may be a deep security motivation behind them. Will the right hon. Gentleman—and I will not press for an answer today—ensure that the form of inquiry he has in mind and the terms of reference he is drafting will enable those stories to be investigated—obviously it could be as serious to us in security terms if this sort of thing were taking place on an organised international basis, whoever is behind it—rather than think of it in terms of a purely local London problem?

The Prime Minister: I think that would be the position that has previously been assumed in our security services. It may well be that those concerned with these organisations are connected with organisations in other capitals. The question whether there is this involvement of a power for political purposes is separate, but naturally a question which is involved with security.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for the first week after the Whitsun Recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): The business for the first

week after the Whitsun Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY, 11TH JUNE—Supply (21st allotted day). There will be a debate on the Northern Region, on an Opposition motion.
Motion on the International Cocoa Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order.
TUESDAY, 12TH JUNE—Report stage of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY, 13TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the Maplin Development Bill.
Third Reading of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY, 14TH JUNE—Progress in Committee on the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill.
FRIDAY, 15TH JUNE—A debate on the Channel Tunnel, which will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Wilson: I have only one point to raise with the right hon. Gentleman. He will recall that in the last two weeks I have raised with him the need for a statement on the famine situation in the Indian sub-continent, and indeed in Africa. Will he confirm that the Government were hoping to make that statement today, but that, because of the importance of the Prime Minister's statement, it was turned into a Written Question and Answer? Does he accept that we recognise the need for this because the House must proceed subject to your rulings, Mr. Speaker, as quickly as possible to a very important constitutional measure? Therefore we accept the fact that his intended action was deferred, but will he bear in mind the need for an up-to-date statement on the famine situation when the House returns from the recess?

Mr. Prior: I confirm what the right hon. Gentleman said and I will bear in mind that the House would like an up-to-date statement when we return.

Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier this week will not prevent the debate on the new parliamentary building?

Mr. Prior: Yes. The two matters are separate and a debate will have to take place.

Mr. Faulds: May we have a statement from the Government about the execution of freedom fighters in Southern Rhodesia and, when that statement is made by the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister, will it be made abundantly clear that Smith and the other renegades will be held accountable for those murders by the illegal régime?

Mr. Prior: I do not think that arises on the business for the week after we come back from the Whitsun Recess. I dealt with that in the Adjournment debate earlier in the week.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will my right hon. Friend say whether in the debate on the Channel Tunnel the Minister will be prepared to say exactly what is the Government's decision about proceeding with this project?

Mr. Prior: No. This is a debate on the Green Paper which the House has asked for, and no decisions have yet been taken. It is on a motion for the Adjournment. I am making arrangements for all the literature required to be available in the Vote Office. The last part of it is a very expensive document which I hope will be made available during the afternoon.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us when we are to have a debate on the Chancellor's statement on public expenditure and whether it is to be in Government time?

Mr. Prior: Obviously not in the first week back after Whitsun. I shall have to assess the desire of the House for a debate on this matter.

Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend realise that in view of the links between the Maplin project and the Channel Tunnel project some of us will consider it unfortunate that he is taking the Third Reading of the Maplin Bill before the debate on the Channel Tunnel?

Mr. Prior: On the other hand, my hon. Friend is lucky to have two goes in one week.

Mr. Harold Walker: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that on Monday of this week the Under-Secretary

of State for Employment made a statement about the Government's intention on the Robens' recommendations on industrial health and safety. Has it been brought to his attention that on that occasion there were widespread protests in the House that we had that statement without a debate and that there was an equally widespread demand that we have an early debate on the subject? Can he give any indication when we are to have a debate?

Mr. Prior: I am aware of the hope that there would be a further debate on the report before legislation is introduced but I am reluctant to promise it before the Summer Recess, particularly as we are awaiting a technical document on the proposed legislation. I know that some hon. Gentlemen opposite felt that the announcement on Monday took up private Members' time. On the other hand, it was an important debate and the Government thought it right to give their views at the start of the debate.

Mr. David Steel: May I ask the Leader of the House to consider referring to the Scottish Grand Committee the White Paper on lay magistrates, as otherwise it is unlikely to be debated at all? I understand that the Scottish Office is already sending out letters to JPs. I think that this is wrong before the House has had a chance to take a decision on the matter.

Mr. Prior: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing that matter to my attention. I will have it looked into and get in touch with him.

Mr. Crowder: May I ask my right hon. Friend when Lord Boyle's report is likely to be made available to the Government?

Mr. Prior: Will my hon. and learned Friend tell me what it is about?

Mr. Crowder: It is a report on civil servants and higher salaries. A further report was expected, but we have not yet heard anything about it.

Mr. Prior: I shall have to look into that matter. I was not aware that Lord Boyle was likely to produce another report very quickly. I thought for a moment that my hon. and learned Friend was talking about Members' salaries, and


I was certain that there was no report on that matter. I will look into it.

Mr. Speaker: May I appeal to the House that, as we have a very important debate ahead of us, questions should be strictly confined to the week when we come back after the recess?

Mr. Shore: May I ask the Leader of the House to press upon whomsoever of his right hon. Friend's is the appropriate Minister to make a full statement on the Government's attitude towards the trading position of Britain in relation to the forthcoming multilateral trade talks with the United States and other countries in the autumn? This is a matter of very great importance.

Mr. Prior: I recognise that this matter will have to be debated in the House. I know that my right hon. Friend in his session after his statement yesterday said that he was disappointed that he had not had more questions from hon. Members about it. I certainly recognise that this matter will have to be discussed in the House.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before calling the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State to move the Second Reading of the Bill, I would point out that there are two amendments on the Order Paper both declining to give a Second Reading to the Bill for reasons which are set out at length in each amendment. I do not propose to select either amendment. Hon. Members supporting them will have the opportunity of registering their opposition to the Bill by using the arguments so fully set out in the amendments and they can oppose the Bill when the time comes.

4.3 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her interests and prerogative, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
At the end of last March this House debated for two days the Government's White Paper on Constitutional Proposals for Northern Ireland. I think the general mood of the House on that occasion was one of qualified hope that there was at least a prospect that a way could be found out of the sterile politics of violence, distrust and fear which could lead at last to peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland.
In the course of that debate, the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) suggested that in order to allow for early elections in Northern Ireland the proposals in the White Paper for a new Assembly might be hived off into a separate shorter Bill. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister immediately responded to this imaginative suggestion. With the co-operation of all sides of both Houses, that Bill has now passed into law. June 28th has been fixed for the date
of the elections, and all the necessary steps to that end are in hand.
The people of Northern Ireland have responded over a very wide spectrum of opinion by making it clear that they are eager to cast their votes and show through the electoral process what their views are. I know that the House agrees that it is essential to keep up the political momentum. The House is, therefore, invited today to consider this Bill embodying, as it does, the proposals in the White Paper of last March.
Naturally, Her Majesty's Government will propose that the Committee stage of the Bill, since it deals with constitutional matters, should be on the Floor of the House.
Before I turn to the detailed proposals in the Bill I should like very briefly to comment on some of the important broad matters of principle at which the House, particularly in this Second Reading debate, will want to look closely. I shall not go over again the general philosophy of our approach. That was set out in the White Paper and debated fully. But the translation of the language of the White Paper into the language of a Bill highlights certain matters which are of special parliamentary concern.
The House will note at once that the Secretary of State has a prominent position in the Bill, and many may feel that this is better avoided. But the House will also note that in every important respect the powers or duties vested in the Secretary of State are subject to express control of Parliament; and, in the particularly sensitive area of possible discriminatory legislation being passed by the new Assembly, there is the additional safeguard of a reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in any case of doubt. I can see no alternative to this involvement of the Secretary of State if the gradual and flexible approach outlined in the White Paper is to be adopted.
It should also be stressed that the more successful the new Executive and the new Assembly in Northern Ireland are and the more that can be transferred satisfactorily to them, the less will be the powers of the Secretary of State. I shall also in due course explain that when the initial devolution order is made, this will immediately leave room for a very wide

measure of responsibility and initiative in the new Northern Ireland institutions—in some important respects wider than anything that was possible under the 1920 constitution.
The second general point which it is my duty to draw to the attention of the House is that the constitutional framework in the Bill leaves a great deal to subsequent subordinate legislation. It would have been possible to produce a much longer Bill going into a great amount of detail. This, it seemed to the Government, would have two substantial disadvantages. First, it would have meant delay in bringing our constitutional proposals before the House—and a loss of momentum in the Northern Ireland situation could have the most serious consequences—and, second, a Bill in which every detailed point was settled in advance of the formation of new institutions would have removed that degree of flexibility which, in my judgment, is necessary.
There is one other general point which underlies many of the Bill's provisions. We have sought, in preparing this Bill, to provide arrangements which will be flexible in operation and which will avoid the rigidity of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. This I regard as an important advance.
The Bill is firm on all matters of principle, but leaves open the possibility of flexibility on points of detail which the House will in due course wish to scrutinise and make subject to its approval. I think all sides are likely to agree that where there are a number of ways of proceeding which could be equally acceptable, the preference of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland ought to be expressed and given proper weight.
I now turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill.
Clause 1 deals very properly with the status of Northern Ireland and reaffirms the pledge on its territorial integrity. Schedule 1 provides for polls to be held at intervals of not less than 10 years so that the people of Northern Ireland can express their views on this matter. This gives effect to the undertaking in the Prime Minister's statement of 24th March 1972 and follows upon the border poll of 1973. There can be no greater assurance than this to those people who


fear that union with the Republic of Ireland may in some undefined way be forced on Northern Ireland against the wishes of its people. By prescribing a period of not less than 10 years before a poll can be held, it removes uncertainty and should for a substantial time take the issue of the border out of Northern Ireland politics.
Clause 2 goes to the heart of the whole Bill since it binds the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland not to bring a devolution order before this House until he is satisfied that suitable arrangements have been made for government by consent. It is left to the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to provide the conditions which must precede devolution.
First, the clause specifically requires that the Northern Ireland Assembly must have made satisfactory provision in its standing orders for consultative committees which are an essential part of the new arrangements for power-sharing. The object of these provisions is to provide an effective means by which members of the Assembly can become involved in, and influence, the working out of policies and the detailed provision for this is made in Clause 25. The head of a Department is in the chair of the committee concerned with his Department. The balance of parties in the Assembly will, so far as practicable, be reflected in the membership of the committees as a whole. This is a vital exercise in participation in government and will enable those members of the Assembly who do not hold office to take a full part in the development of policy.
But even more important are the provisions in Clause 2(1)(b) which state quite unequivocally the principles on which an Executive must be formed. These provisions are a statutory expression of what is said in paragraphs 52 and 53 of the White Paper. It will in the first instance be for the parties in the Assembly to discuss among themselves how a mixed Executive should come about. But one point must be entirely clear. Whatever machinery is used, the Executive which emerges—as the White Paper says:
can no longer be solely based upon any single party if that party draws its support and its elected representation virtually entirely from one section of a divided community".

Once the Secretary of State is satisfied that the principles in the White Paper and expressed in the Bill are met, he can bring a devolution order before this House, and it will then and Parliament to take the final decision.
It would be convenient here to say something about Schedules 2 and 3, which set out those matters which are "excepted" and those which are "reserved". The whole structure of the Bill is built on these schedules. First, there are "excepted" matters such as foreign affairs and defence, which are, and always will be, outside the competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly. This corresponds to some extent to the list of "reserved" matters in the 1920 settlement, although the list is shorter. Then there are the "reserved" matters in Schedule 3, particularly in the law and order field, which are for the time being outside the competence of the new Assembly but on which it may legislate with the approval of Her Majesty's Government. There is provision in Clause 3 for powers within this category to be transferred to the new Assembly when circumstances permit. If Parliament felt such circumstances existed, any of the matters in Schedule 3 could be transferred to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
This would apply in particular to powers in what might broadly be called the law and order field. In the present circumstances of Northern Ireland with the Armed Services heavily engaged in giving support to the civil power and working closely with the Royal Ulster Constabulary, it must make sense that Parliament, which controls the Armed Services, should retain responsibility for law and order. But, in conditions where peace has returned and stable government exists in Northern Ireland and, as a result, the Armed Services no longer have to carry out their present rôle, the Bill leaves the way open for Parliament to approve the restoration of responsibility for law and order to Northern Ireland institutions.
But in present circumstances it is also important that the Northern Ireland Executive should be able to play its part: as stated in the White Paper, the Executive will be invited to act as an advisory committee to the Secretary of State in relation to his responsibilities for law


and order. Further, members of the Assembly will be able to serve on the police authority, and power is taken in Clause 38 to reconstitute the authority so as to introduce elected representatives in it.
Then, finally, there are the "transferred" matters such as agriculture, education, health and social services, which will be exclusively for the new Assembly.
The effect of this is that the new Assembly will have nearly all the powers originally enjoyed by the Stormont Parliament, with the exception of those in the law and order field. But, in addition, the Assembly will now be able to legislate, provided the agreement of Her Majesty's Government has been obtained, on matters in the "reserved" field, some of which have hitherto been outside Northern Ireland's competence. This would be a major development in devolution of powers. Those who say that the Northern Ireland Assembly will have no real job to do should take careful note of this.
The procedure to be adopted for the passage of Northern Ireland measures is set out in Clauses 4, 5 and 6. The procedure in these clauses may appear to be complicated but it is based on two simple propositions. They are, first, that Northern Ireland measures dealing with "transferred" matters will be entirely for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the function of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be that of transmitting them to the Queen in Council. Even if such a measure in some incidental respect enters the "excepted" or "reserved" field, "consent" can be given to it, and this will not be an onerous procedure. There is no Westminster stage for such measures. For all intents and purposes, therefore, proposed measures of the Northern Ireland Assembly on "transferred" matters will be dealt with under this Bill in the same way as were Bills of the Northern Ireland Parliament under the 1920 Act.
The second proposition arises from the fact that the Northern Ireland Assembly will for the first time be able to legislate with consent in the "reserved" field. It is reasonable, given that the Northern Ireland Assembly is to enjoy powers of a new kind, that some constraints should

be placed on those powers. Clauses 5 and 6 provide for a procedure in two stages. The first is that, before such legislation is introduced, it should be endorsed with a statement that the Secretary of State has consented to the Assembly considering the measure; the consent given at this stage does not involve an approval of the substance of the measure. The second stage involves a scrutiny of the measure when it has been through all except its last stages in the Assembly and is, therefore, in its final form; the Clerk is then required in all cases to refer it to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland so that he can consider whether to give formal consent to the subject of the measure. When consent is given, the measure has to be laid before this Parliament. These provisions should not weigh heavily on the Northern Ireland Assembly and are a reasonable price to pay for being given for the first time a competence to legislate with consent on matters reserved to Westminster.
Clause 7 provides for the exercise of executive authority in Northern Ireland, and makes it clear that the link of the Queen with Northern Ireland is maintained unimpaired and that Her Majesty remains the source of executive authority. There are many provisions in the Bill which give testimony to this fact. I do not accept the argument of those who say that, because the office of Governor will cease to exist under Clause 32, the Queen will be less concerned with Northern Ireland. In fact the contrary is the case. The Queen will be directly concerned with Northern Ireland matters through Her Privy Council and Her Ministers. The House will also know that the Queen has graciously signified her hope that it will be possible for Members of the Royal Family to pay regular visits to Northern Ireland, and arrangements are being made for suitable apartments in Hillsborough House to be kept available for the use of Royal visitors.
The House took an opportunity on a previous occasion to repeat the merited tributes in the White Paper to Lord and Lady Grey on their outstanding services to Northern Ireland. Clause 32, to which I have just referred, provides that a payment may be made to him, which the House will agree, should recognise not only the abolition of his office but also his


services to Northern Ireland during a very difficult period.
Clause 8 provides for the appointment of the Executive— —

Mr. James Kilfedder: The Governor of Northern Ireland, who happens to live in my constituency, is the one person in Northern Ireland who is above politics. It is vitally important that the position of Governor, and indeed, Lord Grey himself, should be kept in Northern Ireland, because people of all religions and all political views respect him. I believe that he has a vital part to play, and a more important one, with all due respect to my right hon. Friend, than my right hon. Friend himself.

Mr. Whitelaw: The problem that my hon. Friend raises is that it is impossible to argue, when producing a constitutional Bill for the future, from the position of one particular personality to the point of an office in general terms. That is what my hon. Friend is doing. He is saying—with this I agree—that Lord Grey has been an extremely outstanding Governor. He then goes on to argue that in the new circumstances, because Lord Grey has been an outstanding Governor, the office must be maintained. That is not an argument which, in constitutional terms, looking a long way into the future, can be substantiated.
One must again repeat the argument that if, as under this Bill, the Queen is to be more directly concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland than in the past, it cannot be argued at the same time that there is a weakening of links with the Crown. That is the position—the Queen will be in exactly the same position in regard to Northern Ireland in this field as in many ways she is to the rest of the United Kingdom. I should have thought that that was very important.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Would my right hon. Friend confirm or deny that under the Bill the Assembly will not have the right to pass any Act, that it will be able only to pass measures and that those measures will have the force of law when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whoever holds that office, brings them before the Privy Council and gives them the weight of the law?
Would he not now admit that the Executive of Northern Ireland will have no approach to Her Majesty the Queen and that therefore the people of Northern Ireland who elect the Assembly will not have the privilege that they have had heretofore, when Her Majesty's Ministers in Northern Ireland had access through the Governor?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the first point, if legislation is passed in the Assembly on transferred matters the Secretary of State will, under the Bill, be bound to submit it to the Queen in Council, with no power not to do so unless of course it is considered to be either impinging on reserved matters or discriminatory. Otherwise, he will be bound to submit it to the Queen in Council. Therefore, the Assembly on these matters will legislate directly.
On the second point, I still believe that the direct connection with the Queen is through a Secretary of State who is one of her Ministers, one of her Cabinet and responsible to this Parliament. I believe that that is a direct access from the people to the Queen. That point can clearly be argued.
Clause 8 provides for the appointment of the Executive by the Secretary of State, on behalf of Her Majesty, which will comprise the chief executive member and heads of Departments; it can comprise up to 12 members, although one would expect it to be smaller than this. To provide some flexibility, subsection (5) authorises the appointment of two persons from outside the Assembly, one of whom may be the head of a Department, and by that fact a member of the Executive. In practice, the parties will need to discuss among themselves who should be put forward for appointment; clearly support would be a vital factor.
All persons appointed by the Secretary of State will have to take the oath set out in Schedule 4. This oath binds those who take it to uphold the laws of Northern Ireland and to fulfil their duties under this Bill in the interests of Northern Ireland and its people. It is, I believe, reasonable to ask those who take on responsibility for the government of Northern Ireland—whatever their long-term hopes or aspirations—to make the welfare of Northern Ireland and its


people under the law their overriding concern while holding office.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Would my right hon. Friend be good enough to clarify a point arising on Clause 8, which provides for the appointment of the members of the Executive by the Secretary of State? Is that appointment a formal act, in the sense that Her Majesty's Ministers in the Government of the United Kingdom are appointed by Her Majesty, or is it a discretionary act of the Secretary of State? I ask this particularly because it appears that under the second half of subsection (3) his action must be discretionary. It is therefore difficult to see how it can be other than discretionary in the first part.

Mr. Whitelaw: That is a very fair point. I would hope that it could be formal, and, if there were agreement among the leaders of the parties in Northern Ireland, certainly that would be the wish of Her Majesty's Government. But if agreement could not be reached, we must face the fact, as must the Bill, that the Secretary of State will have to try to find, with the leaders of the parties concerned, whether such agreement can be reached and whether it is possible to form such an Executive. So in the first instance it comes to both. If it could be formal, that would be a great gain; if it cannot be, because there is not agreement, some form of discretion is inevitable.
Those appointed to the Executive will be served by the Civil Service of Northern Ireland. This will remain a separate service under the Crown and, I am sure, will serve them well in the conduct of the business of Northern Ireland.
There is a number of provisions in the Bill dealing with prosecutions. Clause 10 provides that the Attorney-General for England and Wales shall take over all the duties of his former counterpart in Northern Ireland—this preserves the position as it has been during direct rule—and Clause 34 provides that the Attorney-General shall appoint the Northern Ireland Director of Public Prosecutions, who is already accountable to him. The office of Crown Solicitor for Northern Ireland is created by Clause 35. The House will have noted, however, that prosecutions appear in the list of "reserved" matters: this is to empower the Northern Ireland

Assembly to legislate with consent in this area.
As Her Majesty's Government stress in both the Green and the White Papers, relations with the Republic of Ireland must be part of any settlement. It is our intention in due course to hold tripartite discussions to see what can be done to achieve the objectives set out in paragraph 112 of the White Paper—the acceptance of the present status of Northern Ireland and of the possibility, which will have to be compatible with the principle of consent, of subsequent change in that status; effective consultation and co-operation in Ireland for the benefit of North and South alike; and the provision of a firm basis for concerted governmental and community action against terrorist organisations.
Clause 12 therefore empowers the new Northern Ireland institutions to consult the Republic of Ireland on any matters and to pass measures, which will be subject to all the parliamentary and other constraints to which I have already referred, to give effect to those agreements. We must be sure that nothing in this Bill will place restraints on such action if the people of Northern Ireland support it. The clause is, therefore, designed to enable the Northern Ireland institutions to go ahead following upon any tripartite discussions.
Clauses 13 to 16 simplify the present financial arrangements, which will be operated to provide the larger measure of freedom of decision which was envisaged in paragraphs 88 and 89 of the White Paper. I will leave it to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who is to wind up this debate, to deal with the question of financial arrangements in the Bill in greater detail.
I should, however, like to stress that in financial matters it remains the aim of Her Majesty's Government, as set out in paragraph 86 of the White Paper, to work progressively towards the achievement in Northern Ireland of those standards of living, employment and social conditions which prevail in Great Britain.
I now come to Part III of the Bill, which contains important provisions on human rights. There already exists in Northern Ireland a wide range of machinery and practices, not all of it with parallel in this country, to protect


people from suffering discrimination because of their political or religious beliefs. All of this will continue, but Part III provides additional safeguards. Any legislation and any executive action in the public sector by central and local government or statutory bodies which are discriminatory on political or religious grounds will be made unlawful. If the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland thinks that any proposed measure of the Northern Ireland Assembly contains provisions which may be discriminatory, he is required first, to refer the measure back to the Assembly; and if, after this, he is still in doubt as to its validity on these grounds, he is required to cause it to be put to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under Clause 18. Further, if anyone feels that he is the victim of discrimination by any public authority he can, in addition to other existing remedies, seek an injunction from the courts under Clause 19.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The White Paper made reference to a Charter of Human Rights, which does not appear to be covered in this Bill. Is it intended to deal with that by additional legislation?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall come to my hon. Friend's important point. What we are proposing in this Bill, as far as discrimination in the public sector is concerned, and what I am going to say further, together with our commitment to legislation against discrimination in the private sector, add up to that Charter of Human Rights to which the hon. Member refers.
Those provisions will all constitute valuable safeguards.
Further, the Bill provides in Clause 20 that a Standing Advisory Commission should be set up which can look at the adequacy and effectiveness of the law relating to discrimination and suggest what changes need to be made in the light of experience, whether to avoid duplication or to close any gaps. The commission will, on the one hand, help to co-ordinate all the existing machinery; and, on the other hand, it can make recommendations for alteration in that machinery. The commissioner's annual reports will be laid before Parliament. Such reports will also help the Northern

Ireland Assembly, to which they must be made available under Clause 20, and the Northern Ireland Executive. I attach great importance to the advice it will give, since we must be satisfied that machinery for countering discrimination, which will include the additional safeguards in this Bill, is apt for the purpose. This points to the need for a continuing review. For example, while it is right that plaintiffs should, as the Bill provides, have recourse to the courts, we must be prepared to consider carefully whether there are other processes—for example conciliation—which may be more appropriate remedies. The advice of the Standing Advisory Commission will help us on such matters.
Coming to the point made by my hon. Friend, I should refer to the undertaking given in paragraph 103 of the White Paper that comprehensive legislation on job discrimination in the private sector will be proposed to this House. Hon. Members will wish to know that I have received today, and am arranging to publish as soon as possible, the report of the working party established last autumn and presided over by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to consider this matter. Its far-reaching proposals are consistent with the interim conclusions referred to in the White Paper and set out in full in reply to a Parliamentary Question of 22nd March 1973. The report will now be carefully studied with a view to deciding, after full consultation, how it can best be implemented.
Provision for the Northern Ireland Assembly is made in Part IV of the Bill.
Clause 24 provides for the appointment of a Presiding Officer from among the members of the Assembly, and for the appointment of a Clerk to serve the Assembly. It will be for that Assembly to regulate its own procedures but some guidelines are given in Clause 25 when the procedures involved are an integral part of the way in which Northern Ireland Assembly measures are subjected to scrutiny. The Assembly is automatically dissolved by virtue of Clause 27 on 30th March 1974, if it has not been posible by then to devolve powers to it; but it is possible under that clause for the Queen to appoint a day for a fresh General Election.
We must all hope that such a dissolution will not occur. No one should be under any misapprehension that this, if it happened, would be a substantial setback to the hopes for peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland.
As I have already said, much remains to be done to bring statute law into line with the provisions of the Bill, and essential powers are set out in Clauses 38, 39 and 41 to make necessary changes by Orders in Council which will attract an affirmative resolution procedure.
This, then, is the Bill. It provides for a constitution which will be sensitive to the developing needs of Northern Ireland. It does not provide for institutions set and immovable, unable to respond to changes in circumstances in Northern Ireland. This would be a prescription for failure before we start.
I hope, therefore, that the proposals in this Bill will provide an opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to advance towards peace and stability. There is nothing inherently difficult or unworkable in the constitutional proposals in the Bill. Any constitution is no more than a framework within which free men may co-operate for the good of their community. Any constitution may be subverted. That is easy. It is less easy for those who are the leaders of the community to work within the confines of a constitution and to accept compromises, involving some sacrifice to differing points of view in the interests of the community at large.
The heart and core of what this Bill provides is that the people of Northern Ireland should join together in a broadly based effort, both in the elected Assembly and in the Executive formed from it. The future peace and stability of the Northern Ireland community depend upon the success of their efforts to do so.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The affairs of Northern Ireland have dominated this Parliament and especially this Session. The White Paper debate took place relatively recently. This debate is about a more precise White Paper. We have discussed on many occasions what there should be in the White Paper. It would be easy for me today, and may be for other hon. and right hon. Members, to be repetitive. My aim at the beginning is to avoid that. Perhaps I could deal

with those things which are repetitive right at the beginning.
When I opened the White Paper debate, I said that we on this side of the House had asked for most of the contents in the White Paper, and that in principle we supported it. I repeat that. I repeat also in paraphrase the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, when in the same debate he said that the White Paper in the Government's judgment was the fairest and most balanced judgment they felt they could put forward.
Overall, it is clear from our statements that I support the Bill. I said that we would examine the Bill critically. For this time is required. I accept all the problems involved. But there is need for full discussion on an important constitutional Bill which might well last a long time. My hope is that the discussions will not take place in the middle of the night.
With regard to the status of Northern Ireland, I now turn to the first part of the Bill. Clause 1 states—as the Secretary of State has said—
that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part of it cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom
I understand that this was part of the original Act, although I notice that the word "dominions" was not used in the Downing Street Declaration. It has been put to me that there may be meaning in this word, more meaning than I was aware of, because the word "dominion" has changed over the years, and it might be important to be clear on that before we get to Committee stage. I put that point deliberately at the outset.
The important word in the clause is the word "consent". I could not depart from that word. I have said it constantly. It was said with great effect by a number of people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), at the Labour Party conference, and it was the basis of much of the discussion.
In this context, the word "consent" means that the North cannot be forced into the South. Even if people were naȹve enough to believe that that could be done or that that was desirable, it just could not be done. "Consent" is a most important word.
I bring to the notice of the House what was said in the Dail Eireann in the recent debate thereon 8th May by the Irish Foreign Minister. He said:
Let us hope that the White Paper will be the beginnings of a solution, but it is a long road ahead, a road on which we can easily make mistakes and blunders, and probably will, but where we must at all times be trying with sincerity, conviction and determination to work towards the only solution, reunification of this country by consent which means in the first instance reconciliation, the achievement of peace with justice in Northern Ireland"—
and so on. So the Minister responsible in the Republic echoes this word "consent". It is something upon which all of us, at any rate in this House, will agree in the context of pushing into the south.
With regard to the clause as a whole, I confess to having doubts, even with that very firm feeling in my mind. My doubt is over the poll procedure. Taking simple figures, what would happen in 10 years' time, or whenever it may be, if 700,001 people were for, or against, and 699,999 people were for, or against? That is a very small majority, to give a most unusual case, but nevertheless it proves my point. Is it not dangerous to put forward the idea that the status of Northern Ireland could be changed in this way? I do not see it changing as the result of a poll.
I certainly cannot stake myself to consent in the way that I have and then brush aside the method of ascertaining the strength of feeling. I simply make the point, however, that I just do not see that the status of Northern Ireland will be changed in this way. Even if there were a majority, at some time or another, by a simple counting of heads, for a change of status, to believe that that would be accepted by the present majority is naive to the extreme in the situation of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman is making a very solemn point. Will he not go further and say that there should, first, be a decision by a majority of the Members of the Assembly before a poll is held in Northern Ireland and that that would give confidence to the people?

Mr. Rees: It is not a view with which I agree, but it is a Committee point, and one into which we must look.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is not the hon. Gentleman coming down to the very point about which the people who hold to the Union in Northern Ireland are disturbed, that all these promises made in this House are valueless because by an Act of Parliament this House can change them? This House made a promise about Stormont. Stormont was wiped out. It is now making another promise, which can also be wiped out.

Mr. Rees: It is not for me to defend the Government's point, but the Government's intention is quite clear. It is that that should not be so. This has been the intention of Governments over the years. I was not arguing the point that the hon. Gentleman put. I was saying that I believe in consent but that I have doubts about the method of achieving it.
I am not looking into a crystal ball and I am subject to all the difficulties of looking forward in Northern Ireland. But my reading of the future is not of any sudden, overnight change which might occur. I see it to be a realistic acceptance of the feelings of the North in the North and of the feelings in the Republic, and closer ties growing from year to year between the two parts of Ireland. Beyond that general statement, I do not know what would be the ultimate. But I believe that constant co-operation between the two, in a loose-knit all-Ireland council, not in any sort of Trojan horse, is a means of proceeding to the future, and not out of a mere counting of heads, which would not be acceptable to the communities in the North. The long-term future is best dealt with through an all-Ireland council.
The objectives mentioned in the White Paper were threefold. Perhaps I can remind the House of objectives A and B. There would be a conference later this year to discuss how three objectives may be best pursued—the acceptance of the present status of Northern Ireland, the acceptance of the possibility, which would have to be compatible with the principle of consent, of subsequent change in that status, and effective consultation and cooperation in Ireland for the benefit of North and South.
This is the way forward. It is the great hope of the Government's thinking, to my mind, and it will require pragmatic acceptance of the North by the Government of the South.
In the debate in Dail Eireann on 8th May the new Prime Minister of the Republic said:
Can this reconciliation be achieved in Northern Ireland alone? I do not think so. The full measure of the problem of Northern Ireland is that reconciliation between its communities cannot be brought about successfully in isolation from the larger issue of reconciliation within the island as a whole".
The new Prime Minister went on to say:
But this does not mean, and I emphasise this very strongly, that we see a council …as a device to lure it towards an eventual unity which it does not accept. We do not deny our aspirations. But I believe I speak for a wide range of opinion here when I say that we are more anxious to see a process of co-operation, of growth towards reconciliation, get under way than to set a timetable or try to determine in advance exactly what the end result would be.
My question to the Government is this: where is the Irish dimension in the Bill? Surely Clause 12 is only about transferred powers. It is a corollary of Clause 1. It is only about transferred powers, and transferred powers are those that are in the hands of the new Assembly.
This brings me to objective C in the White Paper, which was the provision of a firm basis for concerted governmental and community action against terrorist organisations. I regard this as vital. If 28th June brings success, whatever that means, or otherwise, violence will remain. It is fundamental to our thinking that the Bill and all that it implies is a political approach, but violence will remain. It has become a way of life. There must be concerted action, particularly on the gun traffic, which is on a very large scale, some of it coming in from the Mediterranean.
Returning to objective C, how can meaningful discussions take place about security when security is not a transferred power of the Assembly in the North? I concede straight away that there could be discussions in the conference this year, if that is the purpose of it. I hope that the conference this year takes place earlier rather than later. However, I am in the difficulty of understanding how in the discussions between North and South tinder Clause 12 the question of security can be taken into account.
Another subject which is worthy of our attention concerns the powers of the Secretary of State. I have done research about this. Of course, when one is in

office one can have research carried out more quickly and more accurately, but I have looked through the Bill to examine what powers the Secretary of State will have in respect of the making of Orders in Council. I should like to come back to that in terms of the parliamentary procedure shortly.
His powers provide that he can call a border poll under Clause 1 and under Clause 2 he can devolve transferred powers. Under Clause 3 there is provision for the devolution of reserve powers. Clause 27 provides him with powers concerning the continuation or dissolution of the Assembly—a complicated issue when one considers the finesse of the system by which dissolution takes place in this country under the powers of the Monarch, something that is hardly describable in a constitutional text book. His powers concern the conduct of Assembly and local elections. There are provisions in Clause 39 consequent on the Act or orders under Clause 3. Clause 5 deals with control over legislation on excepted or reserved matters. Clause 8 provides him with powers for the appointment of the Executive, as the right hon. Gentleman told us today, and Clause 24 the appointment of the Clerk to the Assembly.
This all makes the Secretary of State an extremely powerful man, and I do not object to that. The more I heard the right hon. Gentleman today—and in the context of recent years—that is inevitable, and it probably will be inevitable in the short term. However, in the longer term, I am sure that this will have to be considered in the light of experience of subsequent Secretaries of State because the present Secretary of State has built up his own expertise and method of proceeding in Northern Ireland over the last 18 months, a method which is peculiarly his own and to which I pay tribute.
This matter causes me concern. I am not seeking to make a funny political point. I do not care from which party the right hon. Gentleman's successors come—or rather, I mean that I do not care in this particular case. I am making an abstract statement. But we must be careful that his office does not become fit only for one man. It has to be accepted now but I would hope that in the light of experience we shall be able to look very carefully at it.
May I turn now to the question of Executive power sharing. I note that it is possible to increase the powers of the Executive and of the Assembly over the years. The key to the composition of the Executive lies in the election results. I should like to take up one point made by the Secretary of State today. The criterion was laid down in paragraphs 52 and 53 of the White Paper. We all know the White Paper well enough now and so I shall quote only one phrase from paragraph 52:
it is the view of the Government that the Executive itself can no longer be solely based upon any single party …".
In Clause 2(1)(b), perhaps for understandable reasons, that paragraph in the White Paper is not explained very well. We wonder therefore what is the status of paragraph 52 in terms of Clause 2(1)(b).
The question of power sharing will be one of the most difficult problems facing the Secretary of State in his period of office. I hope that I can recall his words correctly, but Mr. Faulkner said that there could be no power sharing with any whose primary object was to break the union. What does that mean? There may be someone whose primary objective, whose emotional attitude, is to have a unified Ireland, but who would be content to work the system in the North in the context of consent. The Secretary of State will have his hands full, as will everyone else trying to work the new system, in the light of statements of that kind.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Will the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) use a little common sense in this? Does he think that it would improve democratic government in this country if either his party or the Conservative Party when in government were obliged to have a Communist who was dedicated to the overthrow of this country as a member of the Cabinet?

Mr. Rees: No, I do not. But I do not think that is what I was talking about. That is a different subject.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: Does the hon. Member agree that the best way to appoint an Executive would be to give priority to those elected from

the various political parties in Northern Ireland? Would not that go a long way towards satisfying criticism?

Mr. Rees: It is most important for people to put their ideas forward. I should be surprised if it could be done in such an arithemetical way as that, but it is something we should all be thinking about.
There are many hon. Members here who will be engaged in electioneering either for themselves or for their parties, and I wonder whether they have thought about the possibilities of the single transferable vote and considered the fact that in the South of Ireland the Fine Gael and the Labour Party became the majority party not because there was a great swing of opinion towards them but because they formed a coalition before the election and not afterwards. I am not suggesting that anyone in Northern Ireland should do anything about it. But this should be taken firmly into account. We do not operate the STV system here, and in the South of Ireland, where they do, they seem to talk a different language.

Mr. Stratton Mills: The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) will be encouraged by The Sunday Times poll which showed a strong trend towards the centre and also an acceptance of these principles and a desire among the people of Northern Ireland to make them work.

Mr. Rees: I read that and I read the report in greater detail in the magazine Fortnight. It is not my job as a politician from this side of the water to come down on one side or the other. I am concerned only that the people who win in Northern Ireland shall be those who are prepared to work a democratic system.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the hon. Member agree that it is best to wait until the ballot boxes are opened and the votes are counted before being influenced unduly by Thomson's newspapers?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I must confess that is not something by which I am usually influenced and I agree that what matters is what happens on the 28th. This is why we should be turning our attention to the Bill because it is the Bill, when it becomes an Act, that those who will be elected on that date will have to work.
It is important to consider the numbers on the Executive other than the two who will be appointed from outside on the basis of the number of Departments. It has been put to me that it might be more efficient if there were fewer people on the Executive—the figure of nine has been suggested to me and I have no strong views about it. The Secretary of State must have had a size in mind for the Executive when he drew up the clause and it is important that when we come to the Committee stage we should investigate this aspect.
It might be extremely difficult for the Secretary of State to get an acceptable Chief Executive when the time comes. That is something else we shall have to think about, because there are strong feelings in Northern Ireland among the various groups. It is a different matter to have a Prime Minister evolved or elected in the context of a parliamentary party and given the way that our system has developed over the years.
I am not posing the question in this way to make difficulties for the Secretary of State. I am only saying to those who will be involved that there will have to be some give and take or the very appointment of the Chief Executive could take weeks to sort out.
There is also the question of the consultative committees, dealt with in Clause 25(6). It has been put to me that it is necessary for the committees to have access to papers.
I turn to the question of a charter of human rights, on which I find the Bill least satisfactory. I have argued over the past 18 months that the best way to set about the problem was to have a Bill of Rights. Part 4 of the White Paper talks about a charter of human rights. I do not think that there is a charter in the Bill. It rightly talks about the strength of our democratic traditions, but the democratic tradition in Northern Ireland—I am not putting the finger on anybody—has not exactly been paramount in recent years.
The White Paper talks about the acceptance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. The Secretary of State has talked about the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and the Commissioner of Complaints.
The question of discrimination in the private sector is also dealt with. I think that the phrase used was "equality in the private sector". I am glad to hear that the employers and the trade unions have reached agreement in recent days. The trade unions have expressed their pleasure at the outcome.
There is also proposed a Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. Clauses 17 and 18 on legislation, Clause 19 on public authorities, Clause 20 on the Advisory Commission and Clause 21 on oaths and conditions of employment are all matters that we have asked for. But I still believe that it would have been better to have a Bill of Rights. I raise the question now only because it might seem in the future to be something that we must still put our mind to.
I bring to the notice of the Secretary of State a White Paper issued in November 1971 by the Government to which he belongs, "Rhodesia—Proposals for a Settlement". It contains a declaration of rights and in Appendix B spells out the sort of thing which I believe would have been a basis on which to judge something such as the Bill we are dealing with in Committee concerning the judiciary, juries and all such matters. Many of our problems in Committee exist because we do not have the criteria that we should have had with a Bill of Rights proper. That is not to be, but the Bill before us contains clauses that have our approval.
Many more matters could be raised now. I prefer to leave most of them to Committee, but I must mention one or two now. The first concerns parliamentary procedure. With the Bill and the two orders to be debated today, a grand total of 44 pieces of legislation on Northern Ireland will have come before the House since the introduction of direct rule. Five of those 44 have been Bills and the remaining 39 have been Orders in Council, of which 27 have been made under the normal procedure and 12 under the urgent procedure. About 24 statutory rules and orders have been made under the negative procedure under the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act, all of which would have required affirmative resolutions if they had been dealt with at Stormont.
I raise the point because although I, like other hon. Members' have been examining the Bill for about a fortnight, I am not clear what will happen when the new Assembly is working. Shall we still have as much legislation coming here as before? What type of legislation do we imagine coming? There is no doubt that as much as all of us—some more than others—have been prepared to operate the system because of the problem of Northern Ireland, if a significant amount of orders come before the House, whatever Government are in power, the situation will not be good enough. How will it be dealt with? Understandably, we have lived from hand to mouth since March of last year. Parliament should be putting its mind to the problem, otherwise we shall start again in November to have the same problem of important material being debated late at night for an hour and a half.
During the Secretary of State's speech it struck me that we should have an hour and a half, whether under the negative or positive procedure, to deal with a most important issue—I cannot recall what it was—on the Floor of the House, an issue which matters to Northern Ireland. It is not good enough. The House must find the right answer.

Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman is making a very valid point. He must realise, as do all hon. Members who have followed the course of procedure, that it will be next spring before the new Assembly can even start to work on proposed legislation.

Mr. Rees: I do not know when the Assembly will start its work. It could well be a good deal earlier, but much depends on other things.
I am interested in the financial control provisions. The White Paper referred to expenditure priorities. One of the important things that many local authorities lack is the ability to give priority. It is the hallmark of a good assembly that it can pick and choose. I do not believe that Stormont did pick and choose very much, but it is important that the new Assembly should do so.
It is not an appropriate matter for the Bill, but where should we see how a

public accounts committee will work for Northern Ireland? Is there to be such a committee for Northern Ireland, or will the responsibility fall entirely on the PAC here? This fits in with my argument about priorities. It matters to a body to know that something like the PAC can look very carefully at what it is doing.
My next point may seem small, but it is one that has been put to me. Someone who served in Stormont was known as a Member of Parliament. What will those who serve on the new authority be called—MA, MA (Belfast)? Is that the right nomenclature? The body is called a legislative Assembly, so a member could be called an MLA.

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman has raised a point of great interest. I shall be content as long as the members of the Stormont Assembly are not called "deputies" in line with the deputies in the Dail in Dublin.

Mr. Rees: If the dislike between North and South goes to that degree, it will raise enormous problems in the future.
My next point concerns the tone of the Bill. It is rather managerial. We have the "chief executive" and "departments". It is just a little bit like Harrods. That is something which we could leave to the Committee stage.
I support the Bill on behalf of the Opposition. It is a political approach which takes us to the election and beyond. We are all fond of talking about turning points in Northern Ireland. It seems that Northern Ireland consists of a series of turning points. In anybody's language 28th June will be a turning point. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, we shall find out who leads whom. That will be most important.
It would be a mistake to think that because March 1974 is a sort of deadline, people can afford to play about from July until March. It would be wrong to think, "There is yet another date to which we can push things without coming to a decision." My hope is that March will not be yet another turning point and that people will work with the Secretary of State to make the Act, as it will be, workable. That will be the


culmination of all that many on both sides of the House have had in mind for the last 18 months.
A solution can be found to the problem in Northern Ireland. Such a solution needs the support of those who accept the White Paper. The hon. Member for Antrim, North has talked about the "Thomson poll". I readily accept that all polls have weaknesses but the Thomson poll indicated that only 18 per cent. seemed to be really against the White Paper and only 3 per cent.—which is a very small number—talked of making it fail by violence. That is the part that interests me. Whatever the political views, are we prepared to make it work democratically? The 3 per cent. are the people who matter.
There has been—I do not put this in an academic sense—a most valuable study about moderation. Of course, moderation is a much-misunderstood word. It means what it says to many people. A book by Budge O'Leary, "A Study of Belfast Politics, 1613–1970", culminated in a detailed research of recent years. There is no doubt that there is a majority of people who supported the White Paper and who are prepared to work along those lines in Northern Ireland. Moderation is not sitting around. It is involvement and adopting a positive approach. It is only through the political approach contained in the Bill that we can get to the position of withdrawing British troops.
There is much talk about withdrawing British troops without a political step forward. I maintain that to do so without making that step would mean bloodshed. It is important to get the political decision and it is important for us to plan for the withdrawal of British troops. That must not come as a surprise at the end of the day. The Bill deserves support. It leads in the only possible direction which it is possible to follow at the moment. I, on behalf of the Opposition, wish it well. I hope that it will make speedy progress in Committee consistent with proper scrutiny.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Mr. Speaker has asked me to make an appeal for a voluntary curbing of speeches. There is a very long list of speakers and Mr. Speaker has asked me to point out that a great deal

can be said even if speeches are curtailed to within 15 minutes.

5.14 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: I shall note what Mr. Speaker has conveyed through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the House. I shall endeavour to be as brief as I can.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has put his finger, with his usual skill, upon some of the difficulties which will arise. They are difficulties which make it impossible for me or some of my hon. Friends to support Second Reading. The hon. Member for Leeds, South talked about moderation. Moderation, like liberty, is a greatly misused word. It is taken by people to support all kinds of strange views. There is one party in Ulster which now has practically appropriated the word "moderate", as if nobody else in the entire Province were moderate.
I find myself in the position of being once more the discordant note. That is not a position which I like. We have reached a situation where it is obvious that the Bill will be carried by a great majority. Perhaps the majority will not be as great as some expect. Nevertheless, the Bill will get a Second Reading. I should not like it to get a Second Reading without being on record as having said that it is a defective Bill.
I concede to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as I have often conceded before, that he has made a sincere endeavour to find some way out of the difficulties which exist in Northern Ireland. Those difficulties were consequent upon the suspension of the Parliament of Stormont. I believe that he sincerely wants to see some kind of political pacification. However, the Bill is wholly defective and will not do what the Secretary of State has in mind.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South referred to what is now becoming known as the Thomson Poll. He said that the number of people who were against the White Paper was very small. I can venture a reason for that. There is a considerable degree of illusion—that is, illusion fostered by politicians of all parties in Ulster as to the meaning both of the White Paper and of the form of the Assembly when it comes about. The


illusion is that the candidates, when they go before the electorate and when they are elected to the Assembly, will be able to do great things. It is an illusion that they will be able to operate within the Assembly and that they will be able to change the law and the structure which the House is about to enact. That is a dangerous and foolish illusion.
This is an important stage. We are now dealing with a Bill—and we shall continue to deal with it after the Whitsun Recess for several weeks in Committee—which is the most important constitutional measure affecting Ireland since 1920. This is the time when the Bill can be changed or altered. It may not be changeable or alterable after the Assembly is set up unless the House wishes to reopen the subject. I imagine that it will not want to do that.
We are in a crucial situation. The Bill is fundamentally defective for a variety of reasons. My hon. Friends and I tabled a reasoned amendment setting out our main reasons for thinking it defective. It would be possible to go through the Bill at this stage and to list all the matters which we consider are defective and which should be dealt with in Committee. However, even to list the defects would transgress Mr. Speakers' ruling.
Let us consider only the main defects. The Bill is defective—and the hon. Member for Leeds, South unerringly put his finger on the matter—in the very first clause. He asked how the consent of the people of Northern Ireland would be found. He pointed to the terrible dilemma which was involved in counting heads. The defect in Clause 1 is that it does not cease at line 12 with the words "United Kingdom". Had the clause said, "Northern Ireland remains part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom, and it is hereby confirmed that in no event will Northern Ireland, or any part of it, cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom", and stopped there, it would have been sensible and understandable. That is what ought to have been done.
There is no way in which one can say to the people who are involved in questions of citizenship, "You will not cease to be part of this country without

your consent". It is tacit and instant. It is surely quite tacit and understood in every part of this kingdom that people will not lose their citizenship without their consent. It is insulting to put it as it is in the Bill because it implies that the Act could be altered. It is also dangerous because it keeps alive uncertainty. There should be no uncertainty about citizenship.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am not putting this in any narrow sense in pointing out simply that the hon. and gallant Gentleman took another view recently, when he was prepared to accept the Border Poll Act for giving consent, and he pressed his view strongly on the need for a poll on the Government. He cannot have it both ways. I had my doubts about the Border Poll Act and surely, whatever he feels about citizenship, which is not getattable in words, if there were a doubt as to whether after a change had come about in people's feelings about the union there could be a changed relationship between North and South by consent, to have a clause in the Bill to say it could never happen would be foolish.

Captain Orr: Any Act of Parliament is amendable. I explained on Second Reading of the Border Poll Bill that the only reason we wanted to go ahead with it was the old-fashioned notion that if a Prime Minister made a promise he should keep it, and that there was considerable doubt then about the future status of Northern Ireland. This Bill, setting out the new constitution, ought to make it clear beyond doubt what the situation is. The main defect among the many in the Bill—it is something that we in this House and the people in Ulster will have to understand—is that the main body of the Bill, the whole superstructure, the whole busines of setting up the Executive, the whole business of what the Assembly will do, the whole system of devolution and the whole elaborate affair as set out in Part II all depend upon an "if" in Clause 2.
What is the "if"? It is in the most imprecise terms possible. The hon. Member for Leeds, South referred to the words. I invite the House to look again at subsection (1)(b):
that a Northern Ireland Executive can be formed which, having regard to the support it commands in the Assembly and to the electorate on which that support is based, is likely


to be widely accepted throughout the community.
That is one of the "ifs" in having regard to the support commanded by the Executive in the Assembly. The wording does not refer to its being assured of a majority in the Assembly, which is the normal democratic process, the principle that we in this House, in all its history, have fought for—the principle that Her Majesty's Ministers shall be such as to command majority in the elected Chamber. It is also the accepted doctrine in every local authority in this country that the executive, whatever it may be, shall command a majority, even if it be a majority of only one. That is the principle from which we are departing.
What the Bill is saying is that the Secretary of State shall have to be satisfied that a Northern Ireland Executive can be formed having regard to the support that it commands. But it goes farther. It says
… and to the electorate on which that support is based. …".
That is a new doctrine.

Mr. Stratton Mills: As I understand it the requirement is that the Executive has to have more than a simple majority in the Assembly.

Captain Orr: It does not say that. If my hon. Friend can point out where it says it in the Bill, I shall be pleased, but it says no such thing. Absolute discretion is given to the Secretary of State whether any of the Bill is operative.

Mr. Whitelaw: It is not for the Secretary of State but for this House to decide. This House will have to decide on the order. It cannot be the Secretary of State, it must be Parliament.

Captain Orr: With due respect, this Parliament cannot consider suddenly that it will revolve these powers. It cannot be so until the Secretary of State comes forward with legislation to consider it. The House could refuse it through its right of veto. But it is only a power of veto. It has no power to initiate it. This devolution cannot take place unless my right hon. Friend is satisfied about certain things which are so terribly imprecise.

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask hon. Gentlemen to do their best to enable all those wishing to speak to take part.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will my hon. Friend not agree that the elected representatives from Northern Ireland are the only people in this House who have a mandate in Northern Ireland, but that they can in no way under the Bill initiate a motion or any trend to get more power to the Assembly?

Captain Orr: That is true. This discretion we gave to the Secretary of State, but we do not give it in any terms of precision which can be really understood by the House. The Secretary of State has to be satisfied about some very extraordinary things. He has to be satisfied about the support that the Executive has in the Assembly. It is a subjective decision if it is not based upon a majority of the Assembly
… and …to the electorate on which that support is based …".
It is an extraordinary conception. We would not agree in this House that Her Majesty's Government should, because of the electoral support commanded by the Liberal Party, give it a large share in the Government.
Then there is a phrase which is even more imprecise—
… is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community …".
What does that mean? Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have a majority in Parliament. There have been Governments in the United Kingdom with small majorities in Parliament but with a minority vote in the country. But no one could say that a Government or even a local authority was widely accepted throughout the community unless by the term "widely accepted" one simply means that the community is content to obey that Government while they are in office. It would be helpful, before we go into Committee, if my right hon. Friend or one of his colleagues could tell us more about the criteria. Are they still the criteria laid down in the White Paper? Upon what will they be based? That is one fundamental defect.
I turn to the second major defect. My right hon. Friend and hon. Members have spoken about the extent of devolution.


The argument is that, in these improbable circumstances, there would be a considerable amount of devolution. That is not what the Bill provides. It provides for powers very much less devolved than the powers of the old Stormont. The Secretary of State referred to the excepted matters in Schedule 2. He said that the schedule was not quite as short as that containing the excepted matters in the 1920 Act. He did not say that it was considerably larger.
To begin with there are certain law and order powers which are permanently reserved to this House. Among those are such things as the appointment of the police authority. There has not been much publicity about that. It is not thoroughly understood in Ulster that all the rules governing elections, including those affecting the franchise not only in respect of the Assembly but in respect of local authorities, are permanently reserved to this House.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I was once a junior Minister at the Home Office and was responsible to the Secretary of State for precisely these matters as they affected Great Britain—part of the United Kingdom. If Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom I do not see the force of the argument.

Captain Orr: I will explain. This is the core of the argument. The explanation is that the rest of the United Kingdom is fully and properly represented in this House. It could be argued that Scotland is over-represented. The argument in favour of the Bill has been that the under-representation here will be continued on the grounds that we are getting a degree of devolution which justifies it. My argument is that it does not, and that what we are doing is substantially reducing the amount of devolution. We are even removing certain financial powers which resided in the old Stormont.
Stormont voluntarily gave up a considerable degree of devolved power over financial matters to preserve the parity position. No such power will reside in the Assembly. The only extra power it will have in respect of financial matters is in the allocation of the resources once those resources have gone out. The old Joint Exchequer Board and all the other

paraphernalia that used to exist have gone. The total amount to be spent is decided by the Treasury. The degree of devolution is not sufficient to justify the under-representation in this House. If that under-representation continues then this Bill is wrong and inequitable.
I do not believe that the Bill is workable. My hon. Friends and I think that it would have been better if we had proceeded on the basis of handing over the local government powers in the first instance and then regarded the Assembly as something which would consult the Secretary of State about the future constitution. I would not have had this long schedule of excepted powers. It would have been wise to wait until Kilbrandon reported. It would have been wise to see what form devolution took in the rest of the United Kingdom rather than to create something which is anomalous. In the meantime it would have been sensible to increase the number of Northern Ireland Members in this House so that we were on all fours with the rest of the United Kingdom while considering devolution within the United Kingdom.
There is so much uncertainty in this Bill that it will recoil upon us. The illusions being created in Ulster are dangerous. The disappointments which will follow upon the failure of this measure will, as a consequence, be far worse. I am deeply distressed that I have to inject this note of pessimism, because I am a natural optimist. There are major defects in the Bill which we shall try to remove in Committee. I want to see a return to the democratic process. I do not believe that if this measure fails it will be the fault of those who are elected to serve in the Northern Ireland Assembly. It will fail because this House has not recognised the dangers inherent in the legislation.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Graham Tope: I will endeavour to be brief and, because of that, I will not take up the points of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) or reiterate the points which have been made by hon. Members and with which I find myself in agreement. I listened carefully to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for


Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) with whom I find myself much in agreement. I and my party will support the Bill, subject to scrutiny in Committee. Our reason for doing so is best summed up in an extract from the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) during the debate on the White Paper when he said:
The answer to the rejection of this White Paper either here or in Northern Ireland would be a continuation of the violence and bloodshed and the heartbreak and despair that we have had to suffer through the nightmare of these past four years in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that anyone with a spark of humanity and compassion, irrespective of his political ideals or political ambitions, could in any way say or do anything which would prolong this agony for one minute longer than necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1566.]
The hon. Member's comments are equally applicable to the provisions of this Bill.
I do not believe for a moment that a constitution will end the suffering and agonies in Northern Ireland. I do believe that the Bill contains the basic framework upon which everyone in Northern Ireland, Protestant, Catholic. Bhuddist, Hindu, Republican and Unionist, can build a better future for themselves. These proposals, although in some respects imperfect, present a real opportunity, which I fear may be the last, to all the people in Northern Ireland to choose the road forward to a just and lasting peace and social progress.
I cannot accept the remarks made by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South on Clause 1, which provides for the holding of polls. Even if the repeated assurances of successive Governments and successive Prime Ministers are not enough to assure the people of Northern Ireland that they will not be dragged into the Republic against the wishes of the majority, surely it is enough for them to see that promise enshrined in legislation. It is ridiculous to say, as I understood the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South to say, that a full stop should be inserted in Clause 1 before the reference to the poll, and that if the majority in Northern Ireland change their mind we should amend the law. If the majority decide that they wish to join the Republic, one cannot seriously say that they must not do so because the Bill says that they cannot.

Captain Orr: We do not say to the people of Scotland that the union between England and Scotland shall be maintained only so long as it has the consent of the people of Scotland.

Mr. Tope: There is a difference between the State in Scotland and the State in Northern Ireland. Scotland does not have its own legislative assembly—I wish it had.
On the bringing into effect of the Assembly and the Executive, I refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) in our debate on the White Paper. She made the points I wish to make much better than I can and at greater length than time permits today. I was interested that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Enoch Powell) seemed to agree with her.
There is room for concern about the power of the Secretary of State in implementing these proposals. He retains power to dissolve the Assembly and even has power not to bring it into effect should he so wish and should the Assembly not meet his subjective requirements. Does that mean that the Secretary of State may reject the Assembly although a majority of the people have elected it through a fair electoral system?
My sympathies in those circumstances might be with the Secretary of State, but we cannot accept the will of the majority as expressed in the border poll and then reject the will of the majority as expressed in the election of an Assembly. Although I may or may not like the complexion of the Assembly or the Executive which comes from it, we cannot say that we will have the Assembly only if it complies with our wishes. That is the negation of democracy.
It is important that the Assembly should be seen to be an effective instrument to deal with the domestic policies of Northern Ireland. I add to what the hon. Member for Leeds, South said about the nomenclature of members of the Assembly. The Assembly must not be seen as a toothless talking shop or as an extension of the present Advisory Commission. I should like the Assembly to be seen and referred to as a legislative assembly and,


perhaps, for its members to be referred to as members of the legislative assembly, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South said.
Although I welcome the intention of Part III which deals with human rights and discrimination, I have grave doubts that it will be effective in securing that intention. It is not enough to establish a Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. There should be an anti-discrimination board or a human rights board—the name is perhaps unimportant. Such a board should have legally enforceable powers and be able to undertake specific investigations, including the subpoenaing of witnesses if necessary in inquiries into allegations of discrimination.
I echo what has been said about a Bill of Rights. Members of the Liberal Party have for many years spoken of the importance of a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland. One member of the Ulster Liberal Party on a number of occasions has tried to introduce such a Bill. I dearly hope that one of the first things the new Assembly will do will be to introduce a Bill of Rights. That would show that it was intent on being an effective Assembly, conscious of the need for social justice in Northern Ireland and intent on bringing about the just and lasting peace we all want in the Province.
Hon. Members will remember that in the debate on the White Paper the leader of my party my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) suggested that the Executive should be elected by the Assembly on the proportional representation system. I echo what my right hon. Friend said, and I hope that we shall be able to deal with this in Committee.
Eventually it must be recognised that the people of Ireland are all living in the same island and that they have a future together. I trust that it will be possible not just for the respective Executives to liaise together—a step which I would welcome—but for the Parliaments of the Republic and Northern Ireland to meet regularly to discuss their problems and aspirations. That may be a far-off hope, but it is a real hope, and I welcome what the Secretary of State said about this.
The Assembly elections next month will give the people of Northern Ireland an opportunity to show that there is a way forward, that there is an alternative to violence, from whatever part of the community it comes, and that they are capable of coming together and moving forward together in a democratic way. I hope, therefore, that the House will give its support to the Second Reading of the Bill.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When the House at the end of March considered the White Paper upon which the Bill is founded, I voted against it because I believed that it contained inherent, fundamental contradictions, and that those contradictions would merely prolong the causes and therefore the duration of the strife which has afflicted and still afflicts Northern Ireland. It is not surprising that the Bill in implementation of the White Paper displays the nature of that contradiction even more clearly than it was to be found in the original document. For that reason tonight I shall again go into the Lobby against the Bill with my hon. Friends who represent Northern Ireland constituencies.
Many of the major provisions of the Bill illustrate the nature of the contradiction, but they must be examined at the next stage. Tonight I want to concentrate wholly upon what is called in the White Paper "the central issue", namely, the contraption for power sharing which was foreshadowed in the White Paper and which is now before us in legislative form.
On 28th June our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland, or such of them as choose to do so, will go to the polls and elect an Assembly. They will vote according to the party of their choice and according to the party which they consider best represents their point of view. But when that Assembly comes together it will not proceed, by eliciting a majority, to erect upon the basis of that majority an Executive responsible through it to the electorate. When those elected to the Assembly come together they will not be a legislature and there will be no Executive. What will happen will be that the consequences of that election will be surveyed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and he will be obliged,


before any legislative or executive powers are conferred, to apply his mind to no fewer than four separate matters.
As regards the potential Executive, my right hon. Friend will have to consider
the support it commands in the Assembly".
That may not be too difficult to bring to an issue by means of a vote. But then he must go on to consider something which would never be considered after an election in relation to this House or, so far as I know, to any other elected assembly: he will have to consider
the electorate on which that support is based".
He will have to look beyond the people who have been elected to ascertain who are the people who voted for them and who sent them there.
Having considered those two matters and formed a view on them, my right hon. Friend will have to consider whether the Executive which he has in mind
is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community".
As my hon and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) pointed out, that is a vague and general phrase. It is a most fearsome responsibility to have to endeavour to foresee the degree of acceptance within the whole community—is a Government eve accepted in a whole community any where?—which a potential Executive, an Executive that does not yet exist, could hope to command. Having done all that, finally my right hon. Friend will have to decide whether
there is a reasonable basis for the establishment in Northern Ireland of government by consent
—fundamental indeed, but essentially unseizable matters.
My right hon. Friend will have to decide yes, or no. He will have to decide whether or not this whole proposal is to start. If he decides that it is and presents an order to this House transferring the legislative and executive powers, let there be no mistake: he takes responsibility, and this House behind him takes responsibility, for affirming all those propositions in regard to the Executive and the Assembly.
Nor let my right hon. Friend suppose that that is a momentary responsibility. Let not this House suppose that it is a transitory responsibility of which we are

shot at the moment when that order has been presented and accepted. So long as the Executive continues, so long as this Assembly or its successor remains in being, there will always be the fundamental question: does it comply with what Parliament considers to be the initial, indispensable, subjective conditions for devolution and for its coming into and remaining in existence?
If there were any doubt about the continuing, pervasive, total responsibility of the Secretary of State in this House and of this House itself for the working of this constitution in Northern Ireland, one would need only to look at Clause 8, which deals with the composition of the Executive. My right hon. Friend was most helpful in his reply to my intervention in his speech; but the Executive is bound to be composed upon the responsibiilty of my right hon. Friend. Even if my right hon. Friend should fortunately find that, as it happens, he needs to exercise no judgment whatever and wants to use none of the supplemental powers contained in Clause 8(3), nevertheless, since he has those powers and since Parliament has given him those powers, his responsibility for the composition of that Executive will remain.
Let us consider what flows from that ineluctable fact. First there will be a premium upon showing that the Secretary of State was mistaken. There will be a premium upon showing that there is not a reasonable basis, that government is not being carried on with consent and that there is not wide acceptance throughout the community for the Executive or for the Assembly.
What would be the position of government in this country if Her Majesty's Ministers in this House were constantly open to the question being asked of their validity on the basis that it could be argued that their actions were not
likely to be widely accepted throughout the community?
It means that there will be built in, by the very nature of this constitution, not the incentive to acquiesce, not the incentive to co-operate, but the maximum incentive in the opposite direction. That is in the very nature of the proposals that we are invited to enact.
The second consequence is that we shall be setting up neither a responsible


Assembly nor a responsible Executive. This Executive cannot be responsible. At any stage this Executive can say to the electorate, "We would have wished it otherwise. These are not really our policies. These are not really our opinions. But in order to come into existence at all"—I am making the most favourable assumptions as to the composition of the Executive under Clause 8—"we had to form a coalition not with those who were of like mind with ourselves but with those who were put there because they were not of like mind with ourselves. Therefore you cannot hold us responsible in the spheres which have been devolved to us for any failures, deficiencies or errors. We are not in control." It is the fundamental precondition of responsible Government and of a responsible Parliament that it is in control. By the very framing of this measure neither the Assembly nor the Executive will be in responsible control.
The third consequence will be that this House will be greatly mistaken if it supposes that by passing an Act of this kind it is devolving any responsibility from itself on to an Assembly or an Executive in Northern Ireland. It will remain the prisoner of the past 12 months and the prisoner of the contradiction embodied in this Bill—[Interruption.] Do hon. Gentlemen opposite want to decide who is to interrupt me?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We were having a slight demarcation dispute. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about the Executive. In view of the time, I shall not develop it. But it is a subject which people ought to be discussing because it is most important. But I have failed to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the Assembly.

Mr. Powell: The point is that, in an Assembly such as that in which we are sitting at the moment, there is no doubt about the responsibility to the electorate of hon. Members who comprise the majority. We shall be held to account at the polls in due course for the deeds or misdeeds of my right hon. Friends the Ministers whom we have supported with our majority. There will be no such necessary relationship between any majority in the Assembly and the policies of the Executive.

Mr. Stanley Orme: On a related but rather broader point, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are not discussing giving independence to a foreign country? We are dealing with the devolution of powers in a part of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman is not drawing that distinction.

Mr. Powell: I will meet the thought in the hon. Gentleman's mind before I sit down. I want to establish at this point that by the very nature of the Bill and as a result of what was described in the White Paper as "the central issue", we are not devolving responsibility to an Assembly or a Government in Northern Ireland; we are creating the maximum incentive to dissent and not to acquiescence and co-operation; and we are not establishing responsible organs of representation or Government.
Why, then—and it is not an academic question which just gets itself asked here this afternoon—why are we, of all assemblies in the world, engaged in this extraordinary operation, creating this extraordinary contradiction, whereby those of different opinions, just because they are of different opinions, are to be compelled, upon pain of not having any existence at all, to take joint responsibility?
We know, of course, that different shades of opinion ought to be represented within an administration. There is no problem about that. Indeed, there is a necessity that in any administration different shades of opinion should be represented. But that is not the reason. The reason is that my right hon. Friends are endeavouring the impossible, they are endeavouring to combine that which is fundamentally contradictory, they are endeavouring to pretend that one can bring together into a structure of Government within the United Kingdom those who approve and those who disapprove the membership of that territory in the United Kingdom.
This will not, because it cannot, endure. Sooner or later we must come to one of two possible courses—and there are really only two possible courses so long as the union is to be maintained. The first is that a genuinely responsible assembly, however limited its powers, should be reestablished in Northern Ireland. By that I mean an assembly which behaves like


any other assembly, which has an executive thrown up by those in the majority and bearing responsibility, through that majority, to the electorate for its own actions. That is one course.
The other course is that we should frankly accept what by this Bill we are trying to conceal from ourselves—the fact that, since the Stormont constitution and the settlement of 1920 were last year destroyed, the responsibility for the government of Northern Ireland has come home to us, has come home to this House, and must be exercised in the proper way with the full representation of the people of Northern Ireland, just as the government of every other part of the realm is exercised.
One or other of those courses sooner or later we shall have to take. I have not been at any pains—and at a time when that view was less popular than now—to conceal my view as to which will be the end result to which we shall come. It will be literal and full acceptance of the meaning of the union which is asserted by the majority of the people of Northern Ireland in its full constitutional terms within the United Kingdom.
But that is not what this Bill is doing. This Bill is attempting the impossible. This Bill is the evidence that Her Majesty's Government, whatever be in Clause 1, are not committed to one or other of the two stark alternatives—union or separation—which the people of Northern Ireland see before them. As long as that contradiction is kept alive, as long as that ambivalence of Her Majesty's Government endures, so long will the strife in Northern Ireland, which arises out of the fear or the hope which the ambivalence creates, go on and on. It is because I believe that this Bill will prolong it yet again that I shall vote against it tonight.

6.5 p.m.

Mrs. Bernadette McAliskey: There are times when it is my opinion that Parliament does not adequately or accurately reflect the feeling of the population at large. But I think in the House today we see what may be described as a fair summing up of the attitude of the people of the United Kingdom to the present constitutional Bill, and the forthcoming new Executive and Assembly.
Those who had power for 50 years are somewhat scared at the prospect of losing it. They have fallen out among themselves and are determined that one or other group of them will ensure their own power. On the other hand, no one is particularly interested and that is why it would appear in the House this afternoon that we are about to witness the spectacle of nobody speaking from this side of the House and the Government being torn apart by its own backbenchers.
My attitude towards the Bill establishing the Assembly in these circumstances is that while I do not have very great support for it, there is not much point in or even much necessity for me or those who support my policies destroying it. That will be quite adequately and effectively done by hon. Members on the other side of the House.
I cannot see how the Assembly or the Executive will work. I cannot see it because, as has been eloquently explained by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), it is impossible, it is illogical. The Assembly is built not to work, it is built on a number of principles that cannot work, and it is based on a lack of democracy. It is impossible, as I have said before, to hold the guillotine of March 1974 over the heads of an assembly and then call it a democratic assembly, because then it is compulsory.
I believe that the politicians of Northern Ireland are a great deal less stupid than the politicians on this side of the water. They will know what is wanted of them by their political masters and they will at least pretend to give it to them until they find themselves in a position of power. Therefore the Secretary of State may well find himself in a position in which as witnessed so many times in Northern Ireland, he is the newest white hope of liberalism, and there will emerge from the elections such an Executive, wallowing in liberal hopes and glories, that the Secretary of State will not recognise them.
But we shall recognise them. We shall recognise them as we recognised Mr. Brian Faulkner when on both sides of the House hon. Members got up to say what a great day it was for Northern Ireland when he was elected. We knew


it was the same old Brian Faulkner in his new Prime Minister gown. We knew exactly the same with the white hope of liberalism, Terence O'Neill. We knew with good old Chichester-Clark that it was the same mentality, the same dealer in politics of Northern Ireland pretending to be different in order to get into power. We are told that people who would not share power yesterday will share power today, but wait until he has it and see who keeps the sweet in his back pocket.
That is why I think the Secretary of State will discover that the members of his new Executive, after all this talk of power sharing, will have only one thing in common—that every last one of them is more interested in getting himself elected to the Assembly than in seeing the Assembly solve the problems of Northern Ireland.
This Bill does not come forward in isolation. The Assembly will not be elected in isolation, just as the local government elections are not taking place in a vacuum. While this move forward, if such it can be called, is taking place, there are other moves being made simultaneously which move it backwards. The problem cannot be solved piecemeal. Hon. Members cannot sit in the Chamber of the House of Commons and push this Bill through and then sit upstairs and push through the other Bill, because nobody is being fooled. The House cannot pass the constitutional Bill on the one hand and the Emergency Provisions Bill on the other, because, as the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said in opening the debate, this means turning around so often that invariably one ends up facing in the same direction as one was in before one started turning.
Therefore, while we have internment, by whatever name, in Northern Ireland, it does not matter a jot what we have in the constitutional Bill. Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House are correct, because members elected to the Assembly, or at least those with any principles left, will abstain, will be obliged to make it unworkable.
The majority of non-Unionist candidates in the local government elections are standing on the pledge of non-co-operation with the State. They are not making anything work. The Social Democratic and Labour Party is the sole

party with the majority of its support in the Catholic community which is standing on the policy of attendance at local government elections. Every other group, excluding the Unionist Party, the Alliance Party and the Northern Ireland Labour Party, is standing on a policy of non-co-operation until internment in Northern Ireland ends. Their policy will be the same for the Assembly. It does not matter what arguments may be put forward from the other side of the House, the great strength of feeling in the Catholic community will always be that Stormont failed because internment was introduced and while internment is maintained nothing will prosper in Stormont's place. Nothing will work because there is no will to make anything work and nothing will be allowed to work.
It is purely academic to go on talking about turning points, future prosperity and peace or anything else. We cannot have a pseudo progressive political policy and at the same time have the British Army continue in the old 1971–72 military style. That is my general attitude towards the Bill.
As I do not want to miss the spectacle of seeing all the arguments against the Government come from their own benches, it is my intention to be brief. I wish to refer only to one point in the Bill dealing with discrimination. This brings us back to internment or detention without trial. Subsections (3), (4) and (6) of Clause 23 provide that, despite anti-discrimination measures, no measure done for the purpose of safeguarding national security shall be deemed adjudged under this yardstick of discrimination. Further, a certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State to that effect shall be conclusive evidence that it was done for that purpose.
Does it mean that a Catholic living in a Catholic ghetto and whose neighbours may be seen to be Republicans, because of his place of residence, his religion and the political overtones of the area, is likely to be detained without trial and will have no comeback against such a decision? Does it mean that there is no recourse, whether we like it or not, against the factual situation—we are dealing with the question of either religious or political discrimination—that Catholics outnumber Protestants—there is no point in using euphemisms—in Long Kesh by


approximately 10 to one? Is nothing to be done about that situation under the yardstick of discrimination?
Further, subsection (6) provides:
No provision of this Part of this Act shall render unlawful anything required or authorised to be done by any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, whenever passed.
There is no yardstick of discrimiination in this country except in regard to the Race Relations Board. That means that rather than some slightly progressive legislation in Northern Ireland being extended to this country, where there should be no discrimination on religious grounds, any Act which may be adjudged discriminatory here will not be applied to the yardstick. This appears to me to be a "holier than thou" attitude by the Westminster Parliament.
I should point out that if at one time the people of Northern Ireland asked for or cheered the arrival of the British Army, if at one time they cheered the downfall of Stormont and the arrival of the Secretary of State, the position now is that many people are disillusioned. They feel that Westminster and Stormont are very much fish out of the same old barrel. They do not feel it is a suitable safeguard for them that an Act was passed here.
I believe it would have been better if subsection (6) had been left out and the part of the Bill dealing with religious discrimination had been extended to this country.
Those are the main points that I wish to make. To the Catholic community it makes very little difference what happens in the Constitution Bill because, in the long term, it is not the way that West-minister rules us to which we fundamentally object, but the fact that it rules us. The struggle, whatever way it goes—hopefully through political channels—will never be over until we have successfully asserted that Westminster has no right to rule us and ceases to rule us.

6.16 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is to be regretted that the people of Northern Ireland could not look in on this debate today because in a few hours, in which our time is and must be limited, we must come to a decision. If some of us had the spirit of our fathers, we would probably filibuster and take up the time, but that would make us unpopular everywhere.

Having had two lengthy speeches from the Front Benches we have exactly four hours to discuss the situation, with the reply still to come.
We have a very thin attendance in the House on this occasion when the future of Northern Ireland is to be decided. This is a serious matter. I trust that the people of Northern Ireland will remember that. I counted six Opposition Members and 14 backbenchers on the Government side during the Secretary of State's speech. Therefore an attendance of 20 hon. Members, taking out Northern Ireland representatives, is the parliamentary interest that has been shown, with the exception of hon. Members who are engaged elsewhere on parliamentary business. We must make exceptions for them. This is a matter that people in Northern Ireland need to remember.
Something is going on in Northern Ireland that needs to be said, and said, in this House as the sounding board. No party in Northern Ireland really agrees with the Constitution Bill. All parties are talking of change. We have an interesting situation in Northern Ireland where members of the Alliance Party are declaring that, if they are elected to local government, they will change the whole structure of local government and get a majority in the boards that are important to Northern Ireland. How in the name of goodness can people elected to district councils get power to do that?

Mr. Faulkner: has told us that he will make changes. I understand that the SDLP has declared that it will not go into the Executive until tripartite talks are held between Dublin, Belfast and London and there is some kind of agreement with what Dublin wants.
We have the amazing situation that parties are not prepared to come out and say "We are against the Constitution Bill and want it changed". I am on record as saying that I want the Bill drastically changed. Although the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) made a speech in which he said that the Labour Party supported the Bill, it was a critical—constructively critical—speech because in it the hon. Gentleman put his finger on many points that we want changed. I believe that we should vote for the changing of the Bill rather than give it our blessing today.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that two courses were open to this House: either to accept union as a fact, as it is accepted in Scotland, in Wales and in this country, or to have the Westminster Parliament totally responsible in a proper democratic way for the ruling of Northern Ireland. Members of the House know how I stand on this issue. The latter alternative would have lifted the political parochialism of Northern Ireland into the wider context of United Kingdom politics and it would have dealt with the matter, I believe, in a responsible manner.
Alternatively, the Government could have set up a parliamentary Assembly with proper responsibility. No Parliament can work except if it has responsibility. But what have we? We have an Assembly. There is no need for anyone to say "We will not work this Assembly". The Assembly cannot work, it is impossible to make it work. Just imagine this House having Standing Orders and a constitution similar to what it intends to impose on Northern Ireland. Imagine the Front Bench, the executive, being appointed by an outside body in whose opinion the people on the Front Bench had been elected by people whom it had analysed. Is the ballot in Northern Ireland a secret ballot or is it not?
There are Roman Catholics in my constituency who have voted for me. Everybody knows my principles regarding Protestantism, but will the House say to me "No Roman Catholic ever voted for you"? How can that be known? Are we to stand and watch whether people are wearing Sacred Heart badges or two-and-a-half Orange insignia on their breasts to be able to tell us who votes for whom?
The House is asking for something in Northern Ireland which is impossible. I say this with great grief because I have sought in my time in the House to be as constructive as possible for the Government. When other Members have gone home, I have sought to spend time in discussing, not controversial matters, but matters that will help the ordinary people of Northern Ireland whether they be Roman Catholics, Protestants or anyone else.
Let me say to the House today—and I do not intend to take any further part in debates in this House until after the elections are over, because I believe that the time has come for the House to hear what Northern Ireland has to say—that it will have to listen to the people of Northern Ireland. The House cannot turn a deaf ear to them.
Why did we not have a consultative Assembly? Why did not the Secretary of State say "Let us see who speaks for whom"? Why could not the people of Northern Ireland have been elected to discuss what they wanted and talk to the Secretary of State? Then the Secretary of State could have said, as a Minister of the sovereign Parliament, "No, we cannot give you that. We will have to disagree on that point". We could then have found out what was agreed and what was not agreed.
But, alas, today the Secretary of State has the terrible task—I pity him—at a certain date next year of having to make the decision to wipe out an elected Assembly. This Assembly was not elected on a franchise drawn up by the Stormont Parliament. It was elected on a franchise drawn up by this House. This Assembly was not elected the way I or the other Members of the House were elected. It was elected on proportional representation, as easy as one, two and three, as the advertisement pertinently puts it on the "box" each night to the poor, ignorant people of Northern Ireland—" And you can vote for as many as you please—return the whole 26 candidates in Omagh and show there is no discrimination in your vote".
This House may smile, but it will not be able to turn a deaf ear to that Assembly no matter who is returned to it. We would be far better keeping that in mind today when we are discussing this constitution.
Three matters are all-important to the people of Northern Ireland. One is the union. I ask the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Tope)—and I can understand both how he as an Englishman feels on this matter and what he says—to think of the people of Northern Ireland. They were told in 1920 that they were part of this country, and part of this country they would remain. A Labour Government, led by Mr. Attlee, told


them that their Parliament would be the custodian of the constitution and that only by a majority of the Parliament could the constitution be changed.
Then, at one stroke, Parliament was gone. The Government should have been honest and said "It is finished", but we were told that it was only prorogued. We were told that we could have a border poll. I believed in, and advocated, a border poll for one reason: in order to enable the majority of people in Northern Ireland to say democratically, "We want to remain within the Union". But the border poll came far too late. It should have been acted upon immediately. Even some Labour Members of this House know that they themselves voiced the criticism that if the poll had come in time it might have been valuable, but it was far too late.
Then we come to the White Paper. What does that tell us? This, I would say to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, is where the confidence of the people of Northern Ireland has been undermined. The White Paper, on the subject of relations with the Republic of Ireland, talks about a tripartite conference and places this as number one on the agenda:
… the acceptance of the present status of Northern Ireland, and of the possibility—which would have to be compatible with the principle of consent—of subsequent change in that status".
The people having already decided they did not want that change, the first item on the agenda in the policy of the Government stating they want to take the border out of politics is to change that very border.
I want to hear the Government say this evening—and they will need to say it—when the tripartite conference will take place. There is no mention of it in the Bill. I want to know what our relations are to be with the South of Ireland.
As to the second matter, I regret that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland does not realise the feeling in Northern Ireland at the removal of the Governor of Northern Ireland. He would, I think, do well to have a little conversation with his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark). This is not a question as to the

popularity of Lord Grey. It has nothing to do with that. I believe I was the first in this House to praise Lord Grey, and I repeat that statement today.
In the constitution of the United Kingdom, how are the laws of this country formed? They are formed by the Queen, the Lords and the Commons of this realm. How were the laws of the Stormont Parliament formed? They were formed by the Queen, the Senate and the Commons of Northern Ireland, the Queen being represented by the Governor.
We are being told today by Mr. Faulkner—this is what I resent—that we are being given a better Parliament than Stormont ever was. We hear people saying that the Unionist Party has won its point and that the days of Stormont are coming back again. But let us be honest: the Assembly is not a Parliament. It is an Assembly that can pass measures, but those measures will not become law unless the Secretary of State, acting as the Queen in Council, passes those measures. They then become Acts.

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member is substantially incorrect in what he has just said. The measures are passed by the Queen in Council. Indeed, the Secretary of State is bound to submit "transferred" matters and cannot do otherwise. He has no discrimination in the matter.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am surprised that the Secretary of State thinks that we in Northern Ireland are so naȹve as to think that he will actually consult the Queen and ask whether she will have a piece of legislation as an Act or not.

Mr. Whitelaw: The position is that the measures would be passed by a meeting of the Privy Council. If they were "transferred" matters and they were neither discriminatory nor impinged on "reserved" matters, they would go straight to the Queen in Council and the Secretary of State could not prevent his.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am not arguing whether the Secretary of State can stop its being done. I am asking how laws are made in Northern Ireland. The Bill will not create proper parliamentary machinery in Northern Ireland. No one should be deceived about that. This is why we are making the case about the Governor. We want him to stay not


because he is a good man but because we want a proper parliamentary instrument. If the Government do not want to give us that instrument, let them say that this is not a Parliament but only an Assembly that will pass limited measures and that the old parliamentary powers are gone. Then everyone will be clear. But the political parties in Northern Ireland are saying to the people whom they want to woo to the polls that this is a Parliament, and others are saying "We can get more powers if we do certain things."
At the end of the day the people of Northern Ireland will have to be heard. The people of Northern Ireland, the people who owe allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, feel that an attempt is being made to placate those who believe in the destruction of the link. The postal votes that have been sent out were sent in envelopes like the one I have here, bearing the words "On Her Majesty's Service". But the words "On Her Majesty's Service" have been blacked out on every envelope. I wonder why.
I discover from the Bill that it will be illegal for the Assembly to ask someone who is to be appointed to a responsible post to take an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty. We are asked today to pass a Bill which makes it illegal to ask that person to take such an oath. Hon. Members of this House have to take the oath of allegiance. All Members from Northern Ireland took that oath of allegiance, but in the Assembly no Member will be asked to take any oath. The Executive will take an oath, but not of allegiance. These are the things that the people of Northern Ireland are concerned about.
Clause 12 is an amazing clause. It says that the Northern Ireland executive authority may do certain things in relation to the South. The clause refers to
transferring to any authority designated by or constituted under the agreement or arrangement any function which would otherwise be exercisable by any authority in Northern Ireland".
What this provision says is that authority which is part of the sovereignty of Northern Ireland can be taken from Northern Ireland and vested in a body in the Republic of Ireland or associated with the Republic. That is a serious proposal. I wonder what the explanation is. It has not been given so far.
What about the reserved powers? Will the Secretary of State have the right to enter into an agreement with the Republic of Ireland and hand them over? In a debate in the Dail, which has been mentioned today, there has been talk of a Council of Ireland which will eventually become the joint security power for the whole of Ireland. If the South of Ireland sincerely wants good relationships with the North of Ireland, it can have them tomorrow by recognising the position of Northern Ireland within the union. That is the hub of the matter and should not be forgotten.
On 28th June the people will speak. I am a democrat: we have to abide by what the people say. Already the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) has told us that a large section of the Roman Catholic population will not attend or consent to the Assembly. She mentioned parties that were prepared to attend but she left out the party that I represent. We will attend the Assembly. I believe in the democratic principle.
It is most likely—I put it no higher than that—that the majority which is thrown up in the Assembly will be totally unacceptable to many hon. Members here. But it will be a majority and its voice will have to be heard. I hope that, in the Assembly, across the denominational divide, some way will be found to allow that Assembly to say to this House "This is what we must have. It is essential that we have it, and without it this Assembly cannot work."

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Evelyn King: From this debate two things have emerged. The first is that the Bill has very few friends. With the exception of my right hon. Friend who moved the Second Reading, I have not heard one speech which has not expressed the gravest doubts about its success. I hope I am wrong, but I fear that that is the common feeling. Second, one notices that most hon. Members in their speeches have opposed the Bill not on any doctrinal grounds but on the ground that, in their view, the constitution, whatever view is taken, is simply unworkable. That is the fear that I would wish to emphasise.
Those who are elected will not be responsible and those who are responsible


will not be elected. Power is so fragmented that, in the end, no one will be able to discover who takes the ultimate responsibility for decisions. I hope I have not overstated the case when I say that; the person who will be responsible, the Secretary of State, will not be elected by Northern Ireland electors and the people who will be elected will not have ultimate power. This is a statement of fact, and I find it hard to believe that a Bill based on such a principle can, over any long period, be workable.
One remark made by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) which has been made repeatedly from both Front Benches and by many Irish Members is that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. I have a fear that from that statement stem an enormous number of fallacies. When Lloyd George sent the Black and Tans into Eire, his excuse too was that Eire was part of the United Kingdom; indeed it was—but not for long.
I do not believe that Irishmen, from North or South, wish to be governed by—though some may wish to have affiliations with—the United Kingdom. It is a dangerous belief upon which to base oneself that the people of Ulster form part of the United Kingdom. I do not want to go too far into history, but for the 400 or 500 years that Englishmen have tried to govern Ireland they have not succeeded. In the last year, Englishmen—the fact that they are Englishmen, however virtuous they may be, imposes upon them an enormous drawback from the very beginning—have governed Ireland by means of the Army. They have governed in the same sense as Cromwell's major-generals governed.
I do not think we have understood the full shock of removing a country's Parliament. I am a little ashamed, after years of political life, to discover for the first time in 1973 that, in a part of the United Kingdom—this time I use the phrase—we have had to abolish democracy altogether. So great an enormity was this thing we did. Now perhaps we seek to put it back. But are we putting it back in such a shape as to be acceptable?
I turn now for a moment to what I will call the English dimension. It is

natural that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench think all day in terms of Northern Ireland. We may well bear in mind that the Northern Irish electorate is something like one-fortieth of the electorate of the United Kingdom. If Irishmen have views, so have Englishmen. I find it a little horrifying to read Clause 1 of the Bill. It has been read and I shall not read it again. The gist of it is that Northern Ireland remains part of Her Majesty's dominions and the United Kingdom and cannot be changed without the consent of the majority of people of Northern Ireland. That is one-fortieth of the electorate. Thirty-nine-fortieths have no voice at all. There is a sense in which I argue that we must give a little more thought to what Englishmen are thinking as well.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point, and it would have been the point I would have made to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), that in effect we might find the time coming when English people on this side of the Irish Sea will assert themselves with regard to Northern Ireland, and the views expressed might not then be popular with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. King: I take the point and I am grateful to the hon. Member for making. it.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point, could I say from this side of the House—I have not consulted anyone else—that if the electorate in this country decided that Northern Ireland were no longer to be a part of the United Kingdom, I would accept it? I wish that this House and the Government would say clearly that they no longer wanted the union, that the Labour Party would say that they no longer wanted the union and that we should be on our way, I would be quite happy with that decisison, if that were the decision.

Mr. King: I am not saying whether it would or would not be part of the United Kingdom. My only argument is that the English people have a right to voice their views on such a decision. I should like to quote from a poll conducted by


the Opinion Research Centre which was reported in the Sunday Times:
The White Paper's proposal of a Stormont Assembly with the Opposition sharing in power is backed by 7 per cent.
I could give many other figures as well as that 7 per cent. I will not bother to do so because hon. Members can get them themselves.
It is with that in mind that I turn to the British Army. May I first take the example of the United States of America. I am not going to argue the rights or wrongs of the Vietnam war. I will argue only this: that it was because the American Army became divorced from public opinion at home that ultimately that nation and that army were both broken. One cannot sustain an army in a position in which heavy casualties are being taken and where it does not have the most loyal and devoted support from home. I argue from that that if we continue over a long period—I try to choose my words carefully because I admire what the Army has done and would not wish to say anything that detracted from their record—the Army will be placed in an unfair position. Over a period of years, taking heavy casualties, and being in danger, acting in support of a policy which the people at home repudiate, as I believe they do, the Army is placed in an impossible position.
That is the immediate point I want to make. It is useless making it unless one seeks towards the end to suggest a constructive solution. That would demand more time than Mr. Speaker would like me to have. I have no doubt at all that the remedy must lie in the devolving of further power to the Irish people and to the Irish Parliament.
I talk first in terms of security forces raising more Irish policemen. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) in the last debate suggested the possibility of Roman Catholic policemen and exclusively Roman Catholic policemen in Roman Catholic areas. I take the point and I also understand the difficulties. I believe that an English soldier in khaki is incapable of preserving order with consent in a Catholic area. We must accept that fact.
That must lead one to think about who is to take his place, whether one thinks in terms of Roman Catholic

police or whether one thinks of enlarging the Ulster Defence Regiment or of raising Irish regiments. In the end, one has to return power to the place where it naturally belongs, and that is Northern Ireland itself.
That is the gist of what I seek to say. I say it as not representing an opinion that is only my own; I say it to some extent because I believe that a huge number of my constituents, a large number of English people, share that view. As the years go by, difficulties multiply and casualties increase, that view is bound to be heard more strongly.
I have said my say. When the Bill was introduced to Stormont I was critical. I have not said anything since because I did not want to make the task, once the decision had been taken, more difficult. Heaven knows, I do not want to make it more difficult now.
Finally, I ask my right hon. Friends to consider whether it is really logical that an English Secretary of State, responsible to an English Parliament, elected by an English electorate, can from Whitehall govern Ireland in the way that this Bill to all intents and purposes imposes on him.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. Stratton Mills: There is much in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) with which I disagree. There is the suggestion—if I understood it correctly—that there were circumstances in which, in terms of the English dimension, this House would pull back from Northern Ireland. That is something which would be a recipe for disaster and must not be encouraged.
On the occasion of the debate on the White Paper I said that the proposals that it contained were not the first choice of many people in Northern Ireland, but that as a second alternative they would have the support of a wide cross-section of the people of Northern Ireland. That was my view then and that is my view now. Of course, others may disagree with that assessment. That is their right. It is equally my right to give my judgment and my assessment. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that we are not discussing a parliamentary Assembly and it is dishonest to pretend


that it is. It is a new type of structure based not on cabinet responsibility but on bringing together a broadly based Executive. It is my assessment that it is the alternative that one must endeavour to breathe life into, to try to make it work, but I entirely accept that it is not a parliamentary Assembly.
I am encouraged in my view—the hon. Member for North Antrim will no doubt be unhappy if I refer to The Sunday Times—by the fact that 56 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland, broadly speaking, are in favour of these proposals and 28 per cent. are broadly in favour but would like to see certain changes. That is about 84 per cent. I by no means accept absolutely the accuracy of public opinion polls. I am not arguing that. It shows, however, that there is a broad cross-section of people who are determined to give those proposals a chance.
In my view politicians in Northern Ireland are divided into two categories, those who are constructive and those who are wreckers. The House must make its own assessment from some of the speeches which they have heard, from both sides of the House, as to the category into which people come. It is important to notice that, according to the poll, only about 10 per cent. are prepared to oppose and make these proposals unworkable.
Although the amendment tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has not been selected, he has in his speech covered some of the ground. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that I agree with him on one point when he says that the element missing from the proposals in the White Paper is increased representation here. That is a serious defect.
Nevertheless, I find the amendment curious, and I fear that my hon. and gallant Friend has fallen under the Svengalilike influence of the hon. Member for Antrim, North. My hon. and gallant Friend presented a most eloquent though destructive case against the Bill. He seemed to be saying that we should wait for Kilbrandon, that we should wait a bit longer after that, that we would increase the representation here at the next election, and we should then wait a little longer still.
Northern Ireland cannot wait, and I was interested to see that the leader of his party, Mr. Faulkner, expressed a contrary view to that put forward by my hon. and gallant Friend. If I had to choose whose side I was on in the argument, I should go along with Mr. Faulkner.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The beginning of a new coalition.

Mr. Mills: The hon. Member is reading a bit too much into what I said.
I have some sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend, because no doubt he has become a little confused by the waltzing around in which Mr. Faulkner has been engaging. First he says in June 1972 that he will veto the Government proposals; then he put forward at Darlington a blueprint, which is quite unrealistic and then he pretends that the blueprint has been accepted. As I said, I have some sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend if he is feeling a little confused. To some extent, the real problem is that so many of my hon. Friends have become the prisoners of the ambiguity that exists, and that is something that we should try to put right.
The people of Northern Ireland can be divided into three groups. There are those of whom I am one who wish to make the Bill work. They know that it will not be an easy ride by any means, but they are determined to make every effort to make the Bill work. Secondly, there are those who say that it cannot work and that they will wreck this measure. That is an honest viewpoint. I disagree with it, but at least one knows where they stand. Thirdly, there are those who say that they will change things after the election. Here I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South. That is a dishonest view to take, and it is an illusion, because that option is not on.
The Bill will be considered in detail in Committee, but there are certain major and fundamental cornerstones to these proposals which will not be altered. One ought to be under no illusions about that. There is, therefore the choice of saying that we shall try to make the Bill work or saying that we shall destroy it. Those are the only choices open to the people of Northern Ireland.
There are many points which I should prefer to deal with in Committee. I content myself now with saying something about power sharing at Executive level. I have made it clear—and I stand by this—as we are moving into a new type of Assembly, and there must be a sharing of power at Executive level. I do not pretend that it will be easy—God knows that it will not—I recognise that Clause 2(1)(b) has been widely drawn.
My view is that there is no alternative to drawing it widely. My hon. and gallant Friend was able, with his brilliant analytical mind, to deal with the difficulties, imperfections, illogicalities and—

Captain Orr: Imprecision.

Mr. Mills: That is the right word, but I think that we are in the old difficulty of how to describe an elephant. One knows an elephant when one sees it, but the difficulty is to describe it. There is a certain parallel here. One has to see whether one has been able to put together something that is a broadly-based executive. We shall in due course know whether we have succeeded, but in the meantime it is easy to poke fun at the idea, which is what my hon. and gallant Friend did.

Captain Orr: If my hon. Friend intends to pursue this zoological analogy, may I ask whether he concedes that if an Act of Parliament, which is part of the law, refers to an elephant, it should describe one?

Mr. Mills: I must not allow myself to be carried away by giving zoological examples. I admit that I should have preferred a tighter definition of power sharing. In fact, the Secretary of State has extremely broad powers in this respect, but I have no doubt that they will be exercised responsibly.
A number of hon. Members have said that the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers which, in normal circumstances, it would be considered undesirable to give to a Minister, but we have to face the fact that because of the need to get this Assembly to work one needs the maximum of room in which to manoeuvre and the maximum of flexibility. I therefore view these powers as being necessary in the present circumstances. Nevertheless,

when the Bill is considered in Committee I think that we must try to distinguish much more clearly than is done now between the ceremonial and substantial functions of the Secretary of State.
It will probably be necessary at a later stage, if the Assembly works, to review and revise the powers of the Secretary of State.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I have been following the argument very carefuly. Earlier on the hon. Gentleman said that after the elections it would be impossible to make a change but he has just said that later on there will have to be a change in the powers of the Secretary of State. That is bringing us back to the contention that the voice of the people of Northern Ireland will have to be heard.

Mr. Mills: I may not have made the point as clearly as I should have done. I accept the hon. Gentleman's first point. What I am saying about the powers of the Secretary of State is that there is no question of the hon. Gentleman's party—or any other—winning power and forcing a change in the rôle and powers of the Secretary of State. I am not saying that. I am saying that in the medium term it may be desirable to leave the Secretary of State with a wide discretion but in due course the House may wish to reconsider the matter if the Assembly works well. That is the point that I am trying to make.
The other matter about which I am not happy is the right of the Secretary of State to appoint two extra members to the Executive. I can see the argument for retaining the maximum of flexibility in the short term, but this power should not be retained beyond the medium term, and perhaps in Committee I shall table an amendment to limit this power so that it cannot be used beyond the first three or four years.
I come back to the consideration of what will happen to the people of Northern Ireland if the politicians on both sides combine to make these proposals unworkable. Obviously, the world will not come to a total end. Life will go on. The sun will rise in the morning and set in the evening. Neverthless, public opinion in Britain will go very sour, and in Northern Ireland we shall in my view have lost the last opportunity for a generation to make a new start.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North): I shall not refer very much to the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), except to say that he obviously found difficulty in describing an elephant; but he may find the same difficulty in describing what the Alliance Party, to which he now belongs, really means. That is why we are looking forward to the election on 28th June, when the people's voice can be heard—and without his friend Mr. Caldwell, who was rejected by the Alliance Party.
I take exception to the nasty remark the hon. Gentleman made about the amendment tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and my hon. Friends and myself, because the amendment was placed on the Order Paper and signed subsequently by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
We are discussing the Bill in a very empty Chamber. It is a matter of regret that there is only one hon. Member on the Opposition benches despite the fact that these matters are vital to the continued life of Northern Ireland. The most amazing exercise promulgated in the Bill is the Northern Ireland Assembly. This strange instrument for the exercise of governmental functions is canvassed in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum as making
new arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland.
That is probably the most forthright and honest statement that has been made about the Bill. I half expected to see the Explanatory Memorandum claim that the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill was for the better government of Northern Ireland. The purpose of the Assembly is not to create better government in Northern Ireland. We all know —certainly those of us who are experienced in political affairs in Northern Ireland—that this will not work as it stands. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), the Opposition spokesman, while welcoming the Bill, expressed such criticism of it that I would expect him to be in the Division Lobby with us tonight when we vote against Second Reading.
The Bill will ease the transition of Ulster into an Irish Republic. In other words, a measure of political surrender

of the Ulster majority was to follow the acceptance by the security forces of a certain level of violence as a continuing factor in Northern Ireland affairs. In the meantime, we are to have a system of government designed to protect the interests, and to advance the cause, of those who have to say the least, adopted an ambivalent attitude towards the Republican terrorists. The Bill contains virtually nothing for the protection of ordinary people and for those who have stood boldly against the submerging of Ulster in an all-Ireland republic.
Under the Bill the Secretary of State becomes the fountain of knowledge, the embodiment of the law and the cornerstone of the new establishment. Should the choice of the people of Northern Ireland for Members of the new Assembly not be to the Secretary of State's liking, he can dismiss the Assembly in March 1974. Is this democracy? Is this what we should expect from a Parliament which is supposed to have spread great British democratic and parliamentary traditions throughout the world?
If the Assembly cannot make up its mind quickly enough on a chief executive, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can select one for the Assembly at Stormont. Heads of Departments and the Chief Executive are not removable at the pleasure of the elected representatives of the people. Once the Executive is appointed, the Assembly has no control over it. Is that democracy? Is that what the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to expect after four years of such a campaign of terror and bitterness that would have created an uproar had it lasted only four weeks in this part of the United Kingdom?
Whatever the predominant views of the Members of the Assembly, and however much the Executive is distrusted by the Members, the Executive cannot be removed from power by the Members of the Assembly. Clause 12 of the Bill, which deals with relations with the Republic of Ireland, states that the
executive authority may consult on any matter with any authority of the Republic of Ireland; enter into agreements or arrangements with any authority of the Republic of Ireland in respect of any transferred matter.
The clause goes on to deal with how effect can be given to such agreements or arrangements.
In other words the Executive, which may not have the support of the majority of Members of the Assembly, can act contrary to the wishes of the Members of the Assembly in respect of actions envisaged in Clause 12. This will arouse great bitterness among the people in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not possible to envisage a stage in the Assembly when the vast majority of Members would be in opposition?

Mr. Kilfedder: Yes, that is one of the possibilities. However, the people who stand for election to the Assembly, and those representing the majority in Northern Ireland, will be standing for election because the people expect them to see what they can make of the Assembly. But the people will be gravely disappointed because, no matter how the newly elected Members of the Assembly may try, in its present form the Assembly is unworkable. Without the means to dispose of an unpopular Executive—we must accept that the Executive may be unpopular—no Assembly is capable of concerted or continuous co-operation. Thwarted by the restrictions imposed by the Bill on their freedom as public representatives, the Members of the Assembly may try to thwart one another, with the Secretary of State as the common enemy. I would regret that.
Although I have criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State from time to time, I appreciate nevertheless the heavy burdens placed upon him and the sincere way in which he has met some of our objections. But every caucus within the Assembly, when elected, will want him to exercise his veto on its behalf. One may say that there is no harm in that. I am sure my right hon. Friend expects that new alliances will be formed and that groups will merge and coalesce. Under the forces of common interest and short-term gain, that may happen. But as the Assembly cannot throw out the Executive, all objections will be in vain; all eloquence will be wasted; free speech in the Assembly will be useless. There will be no purpose in forming mergers. Votes will be cast for or against a particular motion, and mergers are not needed for that.
In the Assembly we have a near-perfect example of the most objectionable and insiduous of despotisms—the apparently representative institution which is nothing more than a sham. One day the people of Northern Ireland will realise this. It will be a mere appendage to what one might call the pro-consular powers which are given to the Secretary of State. In the Assembly we have a classic example of equality of hostility between the Executive and the legislature. We are setting the stage not for democratic control of policy but for a confrontation between a powerless Executive and a frustrated legislature.
That is a recipe for further disaster in Northern Ireland. It will not bring peace in Northern Ireland, and that is what people there want more than anything. That is why they are grasping at the straw presented by the Bill. Their anger will be great when they realise that it is but a straw. How could any administration survive with honour a continuous trial of strength of this kind? How long will it be before the Members of the Assembly have to admit to the electorate who sent them there to work on their behalf that they have no real power to represent them properly and that on major issues the Assembly is only a talking shop?
I said in a previous speech on the White Paper that it would have been better for the Government to have set up a consultative assembly in the first place. At the very moment when it is so essential for the Assembly and the House to be able to concentrate on the elimination of terrorism and the reconstruction of the Province, energies will be dissipated on endless arguments about the status of the Secretary of State and the reserved and devolved powers.
The normal separation of powers—the legislative, executive and judicial powers —takes a hammering in the Bill. The traditional safeguards of democracy are being gradually removed from government in Northern Ireland. They have already been removed from local government. The elected element in the second tier of local government has been reduced to half the membership, and the Secretary of State, through the Executive, will appoint the other half. Under the Bill the legislature and the Executive are to be inter-related in a most confusing way


and the simple fact of democratic representative government is being distorted in such a way that the people do not know exactly what they are voting for or to what extent they will be able to blame their representatives in the Assembly for failure to press forward with what is needed in Northern Ireland.
In opening the debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he had sought to provide arrangements which would be flexible as opposed to the rigidity of the 1920 Act. I am afraid, however, that the flexibility will create in the minds of the majority of people in Northern Ireland suspicions that the Government are providing stepping stones which will allow Ulster to be absorbed eventually and easily by the Irish Republic.
There has been reference to the polls which are to be held at intervals of not less than 10 years. My right hon. Friend said there was no greater assurance than this that the border would be taken out of politics in Northern Ireland. We know that is not true, however. Year in and year out the Republican parties will fight on the issue of the border. I suggested to the hon. Member for Leeds, South that it would have been far better had the Bill enabled the Assembly to decide when the poll should be held. That would have been far more democratic.
I want to refer to the form of oath or affirmation set out in Schedule 4. In my opinion it is of little or no account. There is no reference to allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. It demands no more of Members of the Executive than an employer would of any person who was paid a salary. This so-called oath must be considered in conjunction with the removal of Her Majesty's representative in Northern Ireland, the Governor, the only person who is above politics. Surely a Government who have been able to devise such ingenious schemes could have come up with a formula to retain the Governor. He and his office have the respect of most people irrespective of their religion or political views.
The people of Northern Ireland will look upon the Bill as representing the ultimate triumph of violence in our democracy, and for that reason I shall be voting against it.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: There was a sentence in the paper for discussion which read as follows:
No scheme of Government, however carefully drawn, can do more than present an opportunity of progress.
The most disappointing thing about this afternoon has been that there does not seem to be a glimmer of a will among many to see that there is an opportunity here before Northern Ireland. We are proposing an Assembly which has wide powers and which will be effective only if there is partnership within the Assembly itself.
Nobody need tell me that this will be difficult to achieve. Nobody who has heard the attitudes expressed during this debate can think, if these are repeated across the board in Northern Ireland within the Assembly, that it will work. I at least have good hopes and some grounds for thinking that there are other views and other attitudes that will prevail when the Assembly meets. But if it is to succeed, there will have to be sacrifices by both the majority and the minority, and sacrifices by England itself. The facts of the situation will dictate what those sacrifices will be. There will have to be changes both in the attitudes, and perhaps the privileges that existed previously, simply because of the facts of the situation.
The greatest sacrifice that the majority has had to make has been the abolition of Stormont. Nobody should underestimate the shock that created for the people of Ulster. It was a shock not only because the people of Ulster had taken away from them what they had got used to over a period of 50 years, the passing of their own laws—and this is not so often understood on this side of the water—but because within Stormont were embodied the rights and powers of Ulster to control its own destiny. It was the Stormont Parliament which would have had the right to change the constitutional position in Ulster, if it were given so to do.
The people of Ulster naturally felt unguarded and unsafe when Stormont went. But when we recognise that 50 years of Stormont has ended in the present experiences in the Province, we must ask whether there is any real possibility of


returning to Stormont as we knew it. I sense today that there are a number who in arguing against the Assembly are in fact arguing for a return to the Stormont of old. The facts are that the electoral situation in Northern Ireland will inevitably throw up a permanent majority which will be oriented towards the majority in the country—the Protestant majority. Perhaps I could remind the House of the words of Craigavon—though I do not say that they represent the modern view of the Unionist Party or its supporters. He said that the system would throw up
a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant People.
If we are to get peace in Northern Ireland that is an aspiration which cannot be achieved.

Mr. Kilfedder: Most Unionists who were successful candidates—and perhaps those who were unsuccessful—got many votes from the Roman Catholic community. I dispute what my hon. Friend says.

Mr. Miscampbell: I thought that I had made myself plain. I said that it was an old-fashioned view and certainly in no way in the mainstream of Unionist politics today, and I mean that. I understand that very clearly. I am going on to deal with the exact point that has now been raised.
The very fact that we are now aiming towards partnership and recognising the need for partnership in the Assembly leads us on to the situation that we must get the acquiescence, at least, and perhaps the encouragement, at best, of the minority in the government of Northern Ireland. If there is a hostile minority there will be no possibility of getting a stable government in Northern Ireland, but there is good hope of getting their acquiescence.
Reference has been made to the poll. I need not rely on the poll, although it may not be as far wrong as all that. There is considerable evidence in Professor Rose's book that as much as a third of the Roman Catholic population has at varying times supported not the Unionist Party but certainly the union with England. I would refer anyone who disputes that to the referendum held a few weeks ago, in which there was no possible explanation of the figures unless one assumed that in those areas where they were able to go to the polls the Catholic

population voted in quite a high proportion for the retention of the border.
If it is the position, if there is genuine hope of partnership, surely it is folly to turn away from an Assembly, which I agree is not a Parliament, to try to wreck it and so to turn away from the one direction which will bring into the main stream of Ulster life those people who must be brought in if there is to be stability in Northern Ireland.
The minority also must make a sacrifice. This may, surprisingly, be a greater sacrifice than that of the majority, if my reading of the situation is correct. Regardless of what the Bill says, or of promises or assurances which may be given, nothing brings more certainty and assurance to the majority in Northern Ireland than the fact that there are at present a million Protestants who do not want to go into the South. That fact alone makes unity impossible.
But for the minority there will have to be a sacrifice. They may be able to continue to advocate a peaceful change. But if peace is to come in the North the minority must accept that that change will not come soon or easily. Any attempt to drive the North into the South would do nothing more than turn Belfast into a blood bath. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said that such an attempt would cause widespread violence, but I think it would lead to nothing less than civil war.
For England, too, there is a sacrifice to be made. I disagree here with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who said that if this country voted for Northern Ireland to leave the United Kingdom he would accept that. He might but hundreds of thousands would not. No Government can wash their hands of Northern Ireland, because such an act would lead to civil war in an island 80 miles from our coast, with all the consequences which would follow. It is not possible, physically or practically, for England to pull out. England has its responsibilities.
Although it is not always recognised, England also has a moral responsibility, and not just to those in the North who wish to remain in the United Kingdom. It has a moral duty not to change its mind, because for almost 50 years England has treated Northern Ireland


rather as the Federal Government in America treated the Southern States. They knew things were not going very well there. They took little notice. We were taking so little notice that we could not even debate matters. Everything was the responsibility of the North, of Stormont, it was said. We know now that, far from that being the truth, the ultimate responsibility lay here fairly and squarely.
Simply because of that, it would not now be possible, for us, having taken on the responsibility, to tell Northern Ireland when the going gets hard, "For 50 years we ignored the problem. Now we have taken it aboard, and having taken it aboard we find it difficult. We shall pull out." I do not believe that any British Government in the conceivable future can get out of their obligations in Northern Ireland.
That is a sacrifice made by this country that we know all too well because of the time we have to devote to Northern Ireland. That is not to forget the sacrifice that this country is making in the loss of a couple of its soldiers every week, and the financial obligations that inevitably will have to be met over the coming years.
I believe that the Bill gives an opportunity for people to turn away from their age-long conflicts in the North and perhaps to stop working for just one section of the community and to start working for Northern Ireland. While recognising the difficulties and the problems that there will be, I have no doubt that the Bill should be supported.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said that he thought that this was the most important Bill to come before the House since the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Probably one can go further and say that perhaps it is an even more important measure, in so far as it brings up to date and modifies what was then an initial experiment.
Tragically, this has been a gloomy debate. Gloom has become a feature of so many debates on Northern Ireland. It has not been just a grave debate—that is something that I could understand—but has been gloomy, full of forebodings for the future. It has been an occasion virtually

as dispiriting as the attendance in the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) was thoroughly enjoying the rôle of the independent today. I say that in no sense of criticism. One thing which shines through the debate, and which he rightly highlighted, was that although over the 18 months of direct rule there have been many instances of timing being hopelessly wrong, and everything being done far too late, the Bill in its way is an exception to that. For that reason it is somewhat encouraging.
It is a complicated document. The repeal schedule alone would require a field of QCs to work their way through it. But those are all matters for Committee. Today is a general canter round the course. I have no doubt that the Committee stage will be long and tough, and that there will be vigorous discussion on a number of contentious clauses.
However, for now I give the Bill a reserved welcome. Some parts definitely are welcome, and I shall try to spell them out. Some require considerably more explanation of the Government's intentions. Certain clauses leave quite a lot to be desired.
I am glad that the temptation to have border polls every couple of years or so, which at one stage was feared, has been well and truly resisted. Even so, 10 years is a fairly short time in the lifetime of any community. I hope that in Committee, on reflection, we may be able to extend the period a little.

Captain Orr: Does my hon. Friend agree with the proposition of having a border poll at all determined in this way?

Mr. Pounder: It would be illogical for me, three months after having thoroughly supported the concept of the border poll, to turn round and say "I got it all wrong." That would be particularly illogical when the Unionist Party was anxious that the border poll should be held. The only point of difference between us and the Government is that it was held far too late. We accepted the concept. It was wished on us and on reflection we accepted it. At the time we were led to understand that there would be periodic polls. Many people thought that the period would be shorter than 10 years. I should have liked to have seen a 15-year period.
I am glad that there is provision for administration by an Executive rather than the suggested alternative of administration by chairmen of committees. That is an important matter. I was very unhappy about the concept of chairmen of committees being put in an administrative position.
I have always believed passionately in the concept of regionalism. I welcome the move towards the Assembly being given the right of allocation of expenditure within the Province. I should have liked to see a position in which the Executive had a negotiating position with the Treasury as to the global amount to be involved.
Although it is desirable that the Assembly should have the right to allocate its expenditure, it is a little patronising in that it rather resembles a children's party where daddy throws down a bag of sweets and everybody grabs. That is a little undignified. I hope that the Exective will be able to have a negotiating position as well as the right of allocation.
The tabulation of excepted subjects, transferred services and reserved services is comprehensive. I hope devoutly that the list of reserved services will one day be considerably reduced in number.
The credibility of the Assembly will be largely dependent upon the powers which it is given not only from day one but gradually during the first few months and years. There should not be a grace and favour approach. The schedule gives the impression which not all of us would wish. I do not know whether I am just a rebel, but by instinct I dislike the approach which applies in a classroom of schoolboys where if they behave properly they are let out early or given what they want. I do not like that in legislation. In part the Bill contains that sort of indication and phraseology.
The House, and in due course the Committee, will be at a serious disadvantage in trying to form a true assessment of the Bill. I have publicly gone on record as looking forward to the day when there will be a Scottish Assembly. As a regionalist I believe in that concept. When we are discussing the credible concept of devolution, the Scottish and Ulster models should be similar. Inevitably

one must consider not only the legal powers given to such assemblies but their representation in this House. It will be a little awkward that the Bill should become law before the projected plans for the Scottish assembly are made known to the House. No comparative judgment will be possible.
Some of my hon. Friends would very much like to see the representation from Northern Ireland in this House increased. To me that is a fall-back position. I should like to see an effective Assembly in Belfast and leave the representation in this House at its present albeit unsatisfactory level. What we must not have is virtually a political eunuch in Belfast and truncated representation here. If that were so, we would have the worst of both worlds. That would manifestly be unsatisfactory.
The Council of Ireland argument has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). My hon. Friend seemed to picture a talking-shop, a place where subjects of mutual interest could be discussed. That is fine, but if it goes further into the realms of political decision then many people, including myself, will be profoundly unhappy.
I now turn to Clause 2 and the powers to be given to the Secretary of State and the "boys' own "phraseology in which it is encompassed. The words which I find condescending and unattractive are these:
is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community …
At Westminster, as in any other democratic forum, the machine can operate only if there is a general desire and a consensus to make the institution function. When for any reason that consent is withdrawn, the institution must inevitably fail. That is the delicate flower of democracy. It is regrettable that in Northern Ireland boycotts are not infrequent occurrences. The task of creating a worthwhile local institution will not be assisted by woolly expressions such as
is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community …".
It would deplorable if the new Assembly could be strangled at any time by the withdrawal of support for the Assembly by any group for whatever ignoble or selfish motive it may have. That is an unattractive prospect. I hope


that my right hon. Friend will make it abundantly clear that he will not yield to any such mischievous devices by any political group.
The provision dealing with the Secretary of State's powers has almost an Orwellian aspect which I find frightening in the staggeringly sweeping nature of its powers. We do not want to have a local Assembly cloaked with the mantle of quasi-direct rule. It must be given a meaningful opportunity and a meaningful rôle.
Any strictures which I may make about the Secretary of State's powers are in no way directed to my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State, for whom I have high personal regard. However, Secretaries of State come and go—that is the nature of politics. In this context we must be apprehensive of so much power being given to one person. The long arm of the Secretary of State's powers could spread into every facet of the Assembly and its work, including the appointment of its Executive. Such powers may be considered as those which should be used in the last resort. Nobody can object to that if they are last resort powers. What is much more disquieting is that if at any time these powers should be interpreted as everyday powers then the Assembly will quickly become a puppet show. That is something which none of us wishes to see.
In the Government's eyes the Bill is in part an act of faith after four years of violence. It is coupled with a surprising degree of insensitivity and misunderstanding of the depth of the problems in Northern Ireland. Our faith has been tried sorely. I see the Bill as a calculated risk. It embodies a desire to re-establish some form of local Assembly based on a consensus doctrine. I agree with the formation of such an Assembly, but history teaches me to be wary of consensus politics in the Ulster context.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) made clear what she and others who hold her views feel about making the new Assembly work. There could be a withdrawal of support from a section of the electorate, with serious consequences.

Mrs. McAliskey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not misinterpret what I was saying. I was not saying that it was

the intention of people to ensure that it did not work. I said that there was a belief that it was impossible to make it work and that because of its creation it could not be made to work. I said that while internment exists there will be no will to make the impossible work.

Mr. Pounder: I am grateful for that clarification. I was not trying deliberately to distort the hon. Lady's remarks. I have a genuine wish to see a new Assembly off the ground in Northern Ireland. The alternative is a further period of direct rule. However, I have reservations which, no doubt, I shall be expressing in Committee. The Bill is a long way short of what some of us would like to have seen in Northern Ireland. It is, however, a step towards the restoration of local democracy in the Province and for that reason it is to be welcomed.
When reduced to first principles the issue is clear. There is a choice between establishing a local Assembly which has its powers and composition absolutely defined and an Assembly which is established in broad outline but which leaves details to be finalised by those who are elected on 28th June. I believe strongly that the elected Members should have a substantial say in the form that the Assembly will take. It is wrong for this House not to give an opportunity for meaningful discussion to take place once the Assembly has been elected.
But let us get on now with the election; let us have people who are representative of the current feelings and moods of Northern Ireland; let them come to the fore, and let them have a say in the form of local Assembly that we want. We are taking a gamble, but it is better to get this show on the road, even if it is a gamble. We can work out the small print later. Although I have many reservations, I will support the Bill.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: The debate has been sober. Indeed, considering that this is a major debate on a constitutional Bill, the attendance in the Chamber has been deplorable. I recall the days when we discussed minor matters concerning Northern Ireland and when we heard howls of derision and abuse hurled by the Opposition at hon. Members representing Northern Ireland. Yet the Opposition are not here today to help


us in our dilemma on this complicated legislation.
The Bill has many good points but many obscure passages as well. I hope that the Government will translate many of those obscurities into reality in their reply tonight. The legal jargon is more terrifying than edifying.
The people of Northern Ireland are getting something new. It is rather like buying a new motor car. They are getting it under more or less a 12 months' guarantee from the manufacturers. If one's new motor car develops certain defects, one takes it in to the local agent or to the manufacturer to have them put right. I forecast that exactly the same will happen with this Bill. There are many things in it which will not work in practice and they will have to be amended if the vehicle is to be kept on the road. 
I agree that some advance has been made on the question of the border poll not being held at periods of less than 10 years. I suggest that the period should have been 20 years or that such a poll should not be held at all unless two-thirds of the new Assembly request it. 
I have a feeling that the Government are in something of a dilemma in introducing the Bill while awaiting the Kilbranden Report, which I hope will be in our hands before long. I realise that a certain amount of devolution will have to take place within the United Kingdom if parliamentary democracy is not to grind to a halt. Every hon. Member will agree that the amount of legislation coming through this central body is increasing every year and will break the system down completely if some degree of devolution does not come about. It would have been better to have waited until the Kilbranden Report was available so that all regions of the United Kingdom could be on a par. 
At best, the Bill is a half-way house and it will remain so until either we get better powers transferred to Stormont or more representation of Northern Ireland in this House. I hope to press this matter in Committee because we in Northern Ireland are grossly under-represented in this House. A half-way house is a house of refreshment, half-way along

one's journey, refreshing one to carry on to the end of the road. But if this half-way house does not refresh the people of Northern Ireland to carry on to the end of the road, to beat terrorism and anarchism, it will fail in that objective. 
At the same time, let us not deride the fact that we are getting a chance to start back on the road to democratic principles. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that he would be prepared to accept a united Ireland if it were decided by this House, if this House decided that Northern Ireland must leave the United Kingdom. I am on record as saying that I am prepared to accept a united Ireland as long as it is linked with the United Kingdom, but I am not prepared to accept a united Ireland on its own. 
The Bill will not stop the violence in Northern Ireland. We have to realise that the Communists and anarchists operating in Ireland, North and South, are determined to make Ireland another Cuba and to attack the soft underbelly of Great Britain. Do hon. Members realise that we have no defences to the West whatever? If Ireland is captured by the Communists and becomes another Cuba, this country will be in a very vulnerable position. 
I hope that, no matter what happens, if the Assembly gets off the ground the Government will not turn a deaf ear to representations by its Members, because, in the end, we must realise that they will be the democratically-elected representatives of the people and that their views must be listened to. As has been said—and I agree—no Act of Parliament is sacrosanct. It is no law of the Medes and the Persians. It can be amended. I hope that the Bill will be changed in those respects in which it is not acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland. 
We are today debating the future of Northern Ireland. In the debate on the White Paper, I said that I would not vote for or against any good points or bad points. I have made the same decision on the Bill. I believe that the real decision on the Bill will have to be taken by the people who are elected to represent Northern Ireland in the new Assembly. I will not support the Second Reading, nor will I vote against it. I shall reserve my final position until I


see its final form. Then I shall make my decision whether I think it will have a chance of working in Northern Ireland. That is my position and I will stick to it.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) and I were concerned with the Plebiscite Bill which I had the honour of introducing into the House before the Government introduced their own Border Poll Bill. It is not then for me to join in the general criticism and recrimination on the border poll. I believe that the poll was a success in that the ballot was held despite the bullet and the bomb. The people of Northern Ireland, including a substantial number of courageous Catholics—the figure of 27 per cent. has been mentioned in the House today—voted to remain part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston-upon-Hull, North): The hon. Gentleman bandies around figures of people who voted for or against or abstained in the referendum. He has no basis whatever for saying what was the religious persuasion of those who voted. Any deduction he draws about 27 per cent. of one religion or another is quite wrong.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I have spoken to Northern Ireland Catholics who voted for the union in the border poll. They told me, and there is no reason why they should not tell me. All I said about the percentage was that it is a figure that has been mentioned today. I do not know whether it is correct.
If the purpose of these polls is to take the border out of Northern Ireland politics, clearly they should not be held often. The Province should not be repeatedly disturbed by frequently re-opening the border question. One in a generation should suffice. One of the Schedules to the Bill specifies a minimum interval of 10 years. The trouble with minima is that they tend to become maxima. I consider that 10 years is insufficient because in the words of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), to have frequent plebiscites is to keep uncertainty alive. 
Even if it were in doubt before, it is now incontestable that the great majority of Northern Ireland people want to remain

in union with Great Britain. That fact should be acknowledged here ungrudgingly and with gratitude. In the Second World War we were glad that Ulster was part of the United Kingdom. In this third world war of international terrorism and subversion there can be no desertion of duty, no pulling out of Northern Ireland. Those who talk in such terms seem to think of Northern Ireland as a colonial territory and of the conflict going on there as a colonial campaign. Northern Ireland is not a colony. It is part of the United Kingdom. The defence of Northern Ireland is part of the defence of the homeland. 
Northern Ireland is a province of the United Kingdom and no part of the United Kingdom can for long be denied representative Government. I agree with the Government in their choice of devolution in preference to a policy of complete integration. In either case it was incumbent upon them to ensure proportionate parliamentary representation of Northern Ireland in this House. That they have not done. Whatever sacrifice of constitutional principle the Government may have made to the expediency of consensus across the Floor of the House, I ask my right hon. Friend to think again. 
The failure either to restore the Northern Ireland Parliament or to provide fuller representation in this House is grist to the mill of those in Northern Ireland who call for UDI. Already in history Ulstermen have harkened to the message of the American Revolution: "No taxation without representation". This grave omission in itself justifies the amendment tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend and other Unionist colleagues together with the Democratic Unionist Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I am sorry that the amendment was not selected. 
If legislative devolution be the aim of the Government, it is regrettable that, having heard the debate on the White Paper, the Secretary of State should have provided in the Bill for the abolition of the Governorship. Few changes can be more disturbing to the morale of the loyal and peaceable people in Northern Ireland than those which impinge upon the Throne. The concomitant of a devolution of legislative power is the maintenance of the Crown representative in Northern Ireland. 
My right hon. Friend has vast powers under the terms of this Bill. He is a despot—a most benevolent despot. He discharges his heavy duty with compassion and moderation. He is a combination of a sort of Poynings and a kind of Cromwell. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) also spoke of Orwell. Be that as it may, my right hon. Friend should not be so Cromwellian as to wish to perform himself the ceremonial and other important Vice-Regal functions. I do not believe he wants to do so.
I spoke about this during the debate on the White Paper. I also spoke about the oath. Clause 21 may be excused because it brings Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. The oath or affirmation printed in Schedule 4 is a miserable, emasculated oath. Oaths have bedevilled Irish affairs before now. Oaths of allegiance played a part in the history of the South of Ireland when it was a Dominion. I would say that it is better to have no oath rather than to have this one. If Clause 21 is justified because it brings the practice in Northern Ireland into line of that in Great Britain then the oath which is good enough for Members of Parliament here should be good enough for Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. 
As the Bill stands, the dictatorship of my right hon. Friend continues in a new form. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South pointed out that my right hon. Friend will not always be Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I shudder to think of what will happen if this Bill goes through as it stands and the office of Secretary of State falls into less benign hands. 
The prorogation of Stormont—and the Provisional IRA, whose first demand it was, at once described it as the "abolition" of Stormont—ended a system which, with all its imperfections—and is Westminster without blemish?—gave six Irish counties half a century of peace and enabled us to win the Battle of the Atlantic. It is right that that is remembered. I suppose that this Bill will reach the Statute Book. It needs drastic amendment. I agree with my hon. Friend the

Member for Armagh who said that he would like to see the Bill when it leaves Committee. 
It has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and by those who are less devoted to the union than he is, for example, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey), that this Bill will make for non-co-operation. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South spoke of the danger of abstentionism, to which I have referred on a number of occasions. Have the Government any plans for dealing with this? The Bill will be justified only if it emerges as the first stage in the return to the representatives of the Northern Ireland people of responsibility for their own provincial affairs, including internal security, which can be properly and permanently organised only by local forces with local knowledge. 
The Assembly which is to be elected is the place where the next great political battle will be fought in Northern Ireland. I believe that the Northern Irish people will find their Grattan and the will to make the election of the Assembly a stepping stone in the recovery of Home Rule for Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Hon. Members have commented that a mere 10 Members are in the House to discuss this most important constitutional measure. I much regret that a mere half dozen or so backbenchers on the Government side of the House and only the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) on the back benches opposite have thought it worth while to stay throughout the debate on a proposal which might form a prototype for other devolved institutions for Wales and Scotland. Other Members of the House of Commons would do well to follow more closely the debate on the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill. 
In the past three years when debates have taken place on Northern Ireland the benches have been crowded and a great deal of destructive criticism has been levelled against the Government for the way they have handled Northern Ireland affairs. It is seen tonight how


much easier it is to be destructive than to be constructive.
I welcome the Bill because it provides for steps to be taken to set up new representative institutions in Northern Ireland, but I share the apprehension of my colleagues, particularly of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) whose amendment, to which I had added my name, was not selected.
The people of Northern Ireland are worried about many details in the Bill and the White Paper. I remind the House, as I did in the debate on the White Paper, of the recital at the beginning of that White Paper which repeated the statement contained in the preliminary paper published in October called "The Future of Northern Ireland: A Paper for Discussion".
Paragraph 2(c) of the White Paper reads as follows:
Any division of powers and responsibilities between the national and the regional authorities must be logical, open and clearly understood. Ambiguity in the relationship is a prescription for confusion and misunderstanding. Any necessary checks, balances or controls must be apparent on the face of a new constitutional scheme.
Paragraph 2(d) reads:
The two primary purposes of any new institutions must be first to seek a much wider consensus than has hitherto existed; and second to be such as will work efficiently and will be capable of providing the concrete results of good government.
I invite hon. Members to consider carefully whether the Bill satisfies that requirement set out in the initial paper for discussion and repeated in the White Paper which decries ambiguity and requires that the new institutions must be capable of working efficiently.
How does one interpret the provisions of Clause 2(1)(b)? Is it clear, or is it full of ambiguity? The paragraph provides that if it appears to the Secretary of State:
that a Northern Ireland Executive can be formed which, having regard to the support it commands in the Assembly and to the electorate on which that support is based, is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community.
he shall do certain things. It is for the Secretary of State to determine whether the Executive fulfils this requirement. No Act ever passed by the House could

be more woolly, imprecise and vague in its terms. How is the Secretary of State to decide that an Executive can be formed having regard to the support it commands in the Assembly and to the electorate on which that support is based? Surely, if the election has been held regularly and properly, by definition the Executive must have the support of the electorate. 
How can the Secretary of State determine whether the Executive is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community? Have the Government moved completely away from the ordinary principles of democratic government in setting up the Assembly? Does the House feel that the provisions relating to power-sharing can provide effective government? What are the requisites of an effective and responsible Government or Executive and a responsible Parliament? 
If it is desired to establish ordinary democratic machinery in Northern Ireland, as I believe it is, the first requisite is to have a Government and an Opposition. But the Bill provides for a form of Government to which no opposition can exist. If the power and the Government of the country are to be shared by both sides, how can there be an Opposition? Who is to fight an election and oppose what the Government are doing? What sort of manifesto could be drafted by an Opposition? If the Government fail in their task in the eyes of the electorate, what remedy lies with the electorate? Whom are they to vote for—or are they to return to fighting in the streets?

Mr. James Molyneux: Perhaps the parties concerned could come together prior to the election and invite the then Secretary of State to write the manifesto for them.

Mr. McMaster: That is a possibility, but surely a subsequent election following a period of government as provided for in the Bill can be nothing but a charade.
I invite the Government seriously to consider whether, in their efforts to form a type of Government in Northern Ireland which will meet the requisites set out in Part I of the White Paper, in which there will be participation by the community, they have fallen over backwards in their attempt to obtain consensus of the


majority. This will not produce efficient government.
The essence of efficient government is that there should be two or more parties each with conflicting ideas of government which are placed before the electorate. The electors then make their choice. If the party which is elected tries out the formula set out in its manifesto and proves to be unsatisfactory in the eyes of the majority, the remedy is there at the next election. The electors elect the other party which tries out the other philosophy. The White Paper does not provide for that. It sets up little more than an odd type of bureaucracy that is responsible neither to the people in Northern Ireland nor to this House in so far as certain matters are transferred completely into its power and control. 
It is with some regret that I have come to these conclusions. As I said in my opening remarks, I welcome the restoration of some sort of institutions in Northern Ireland. However, I believe that the formula set out in the Bill is doomed to failure from the start. The provisions relating to power sharing are totally impractical. Those relating to the holding of the election itself are not conducive to the formation of a sensible, stable administration in Northern Ireland. 
The new Assembly, with 78 seats based on the 12 existing Westminster constituencies, will result in each constituency returning six or seven Members by a system of proportional representation. How is the ordinary man in the street to cope with a list of 20, 30 or perhaps even 40 names and to place them in order of priority? The great majority of the names appearing on the list will be of persons completely unknown to him. In the ordinary course of events in the next four weeks, they will have no opportunity to put their ideas to the electorate. As a result, the voter will not be able to choose sensibly from the names set out on the voting paper. 
Of those who are returned, who will represent each individual constituent—

Mrs. McAliskey: I am trying to understand the hon. Gentleman's dilemma about the ballot paper. Is he saying that there will be no means of identifying the different candidates other than by their names? Is the hon. Gentleman saying

that descriptions such as "Official Unionist", "SDLP" or "Republican Club" will not accompany each name on the ballot paper?

Mr. McMaster: I should like dearly to follow the hon. Lady into the trap that she seems to be setting. There will be descriptions on ballot papers so far as the law permits. But what I am concerned about is that on my own side presumably we shall have Alliance candidates, Official Unionist candidates, other forms of Unionists, DUP candidates, Vanguard candidates, perhaps UDA candidates, and others. An elector will have to choose between the philosophies, as he knows and understands them, of the parties rather than the candidates.
It may be that a voter who would describe himself simply as a Unionist would prefer to put in order of preference five or six names not reflecting the official tags but his own estimation of the ability of the men concerned to represent him properly. Bearing in mind the limitation in time, it will be difficult for each candidate to put forward his views either by means of an election address or by interviews on radio and television. It will be impossible for candidates throwing their names into the hat throughout Northern Ireland to project their ideas and personalities so that the ordinary elector can fairly and sensibly choose between them. 
Once the election has been held, it will be even more difficult for an individual constituent in any of the 12 Ulster constituencies to know to whom he should address any letter, complaint or representation. He will not know which of the five, six or seven Assembly Members covering his area is responsible to him. Will he have to shop around? Will it be a case of picking one and, in the event of his not answering satisfactorily, then going to another? What method is the ordinary voters to use to remedy any grievance that he may have against the administration in Northern Ireland following elections which are based on the formula set out in the White Paper and now in the Bill?
I come to an even more serious complaint. We have been told by the Secretary of State that the reason why the number of Ulster Members in this House have not been increased is that the


Government are setting up a Parliament in Northern Ireland. If that is the case, why do not they use the word "Parliament"? Are they frightened of the word? Are they frightened of referring to "Ministers" and "Members of Parliament"? The answer plainly is that it is not a Parliament. I have given several reasons why it is not a Parliament and can never hope to become a Parliament. As the Secretary of State said, it is an experiment in the devolution of power, but it is not devolution using the ordinary machinery to which we in this country have been accustomed.
What argument does my right hon. Friend advance for maintaining the under-representation of Northern Ireland in this House? We have only 12 Members. We have not proper representation. When this House is dealing with fundamental matters such as foreign affairs, taxation or defence, all of which have been and will continue to be the sole concern of this House, Northern Ireland is under-represented. When it comes to other matters which are covered in the Bill, some of which may be dealt with by the Assembly and others of which are completely transferred to the Assembly, Northern Ireland is still not properly represented.
This is another fundamental objection to the formula set out in the White Paper and incorporated in the Bill. One of the main complaints against Northern Ireland in the past has concerned the lack of democracy there. If we are to have democracy and if we are to practise what we preach, we must increase the representation of Northern Ireland at Westminster.
There are a number of other minor matters, but as there may be several other hon. Members still wishing to speak—[Interruption.] A number of my hon. Friends seem to think that I have been given bad advice about that.
I come to the clauses dealing with the Council of Ireland. I have two causes of concern in this context. The first is that the provisions in Clause 12 seem to provide that the Assembly in Northern Ireland will be able to negotiate with the South of Ireland and will be able to enter into binding agreements. If one accepts the argument which I have been putting forward, that the Bill does not set up a

proper responsible Government in Northern Ireland following ordinary parliamentary principles, surely it is not right that that body should be able to negotiate and to bind the whole of the United Kingdom even in relation to transferred matters.
The second and even more fundamental matter is that I have always been concerned by the knowledge that the constitution of the South of Ireland sets out clearly that it is a constitution for the whole of Ireland—that is. for the 32 counties of Ireland. It adds in a subsection that, pending reintegration, it shall apply only to the 26 counties which we know as Southern Ireland or Eire.
I would ask the House whether this is not the nub of the problem which we have been facing in Northern Ireland and which has led to the trouble of the past three years. We have on the borders of the United Kingdom—and I emphasise that—a foreign country: a foreign country by its own act, first of all as a result of what happened in 1920 and finally as a result of what happened just after the last war, in 1946, when it broke its ties with the Commonwealth; a country which claims authority over a part of the United Kingdom and which furthermore sets out this claim clearly in its own constitution.
How can we possibly sit down at a table with members of a Government who serve under that constitution and who have set out quite clearly that their desire is the eventual annexation of a part of the United Kingdom? I feel that before a Council of Ireland is discussed, that constitution must be changed. The Government and people in Southern Ireland must recognise—not just de facto by sitting down at a table, but de jure, by law, by amending their constitution—the right of the people of Northern Ireland to remain a part of the United Kingdom, as indeed the Bill does in its first clause.
Perhaps the best thing about the Bill is what it sets out in Clause 1. However, the end of that clause causes me even more concern. It provides that there shall be a poll, and not just the poll we have had, but perhaps repeated polls, to decide whether the people of Northern Ireland still want to remain a part of the United Kingdom. According to the provisions of the Bill, these polls cannot be held at


intervals of less than 10 years. I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that minimum clauses very often become the standard. Think how unsettling it will be the conditions that prevail in Northern Ireland if we have a poll every 10 or 12 years. How can one hope to establish stable government in Northern Ireland if, after a period as short as 10 years, the question is to be put again to the people of Northern Ireland whether they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. Think of the stimulus this would give to the IRA to maintain its campaign and, as the 10-year period runs out, to increase the tempo of that campaign.
Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South, I never favoured the holding of a poll in Northern Ireland. I thought that in the circumstances which prevailed in Northern Ireland it would tend only to exacerbate the situation there and that it would not settle anything. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in a recent broadcast to Northern Ireland when we were debating the White Paper that the holding of this plebiscite had taken the border issue out of Northern Ireland politics. I invite him to read the addresses which come out before the election before saying that. The border issue is more a part of the politics of Northern Ireland than it ever was in the past, and if constant polls are held it will remain so.
If the Government cannot be persuaded to drop this senseless proposal, I ask them at least to consider amending the period in the Bill and substituting 20 or 25 years for 10 years. Even that, I think, is too short a period to achieve the end which the legislators, by their own admission, desire.
Another matter which has caused grave concern in Northern Ireland relates to the position of our Governor. A tribute has already been paid during this debate to Lord Grey. We hold him in very high esteem in Northern Ireland. But my right hon. Friend interrupted earlier in the debate to suggest that simply because Lord Grey was a very good Governor was no argument for the retention of the position of Governor. I would ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to think again. The office of

Governor does not depend for its strength on the individual, much as we admire Lord Grey. The whole concept of a Governor is to provide an independent root of power—like the Queen in this country—someone to whom, in complex circumstances such as prevail at the moment, any minority can go and speak freely and honestly from the heart. This is the strength of the position of Governor, and this is what the Government are abolishing in their proposal in the Bill. I suggest that the position of Governor provides a factor which tends to maintain law and order in the community, which tends to produce accord in the community and which tends to lower temperatures in the community. By abolishing this post the Government are taking a retrogressive step.
Reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davidson to the oath of allegiance, and I should like briefly to agree with his remarks. Surely the emasculated oath which is set out in the Bill, and the even more offensive provision abolishing the oath for those who are taking on positions of responsibility on statutory boards or in local government, cannot be designed with the best interests of Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom at heart. As the Bill itself states, Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom and everyone who lives there and works there, if he is working for the good of the country, must owe allegiance to the Queen. If not, people can only be described as aspiring to ends which are treasonable under our own common law and statute law in this country.
That brings me to my main point of criticism of the Bill. Is it envisaged that people who contemplate an object which can only be described as treasonable—that is, who wish to subvert the country and subvert and overthrow the Government—can sit at a table with others in the community and provide for effective, consistent, sensible government in Northern Ireland?
To conclude, I feel that the powers and the influence of the Secretary of State as set out in the Bill will work against the establishment of a proper democratic system of government in Northern Ireland, even to the limited extent of the powers transferred to the new Assembly in Northern Ireland. Too


much power is being left in the hands of the Secretary of State. The power relating to the control of internal security which is retained by this House, if we are ever to achieve law and order in Northern Ireland, would be better placed in the hands of those elected in Northern Ireland who understand the security position there and without whose co-operation it will be impossible to bring the subversive forces of the IRA under control.
I should like the power relating to internal security to be transferred to the executive authority in Northern Ireland, not when law and order is restored but straight away. I should like the people of Northern Ireland to be invited to play a full and active part in restoring law and order to all areas in the Province. Until we have not only an effective police force, but an effective militia formed in Northern Ireland which can use its local knowledge and desire to establish law and order there as a prime object of government—it has always been the main object of Government in this House to establish the Queen's peace throughout the land, and it is in this respect that the Government have failed most in Northern Ireland—and this power is taken back into the hands of a local administration in Northern Ireland, we shall never restore either effective government or law and order, peace and security, to our Province.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. David Crouch: I have listened to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) with much sympathy and great interest. I confess that as an English Member I cannot speak with the authority of knowing the situation in Northern Ireland, as can those hon. Members of all parties who are able to speak with a passionate interest because they know of and live with the problems of citizens of the United Kingdom who are suffering under such difficulties in Northern Ireland.
An ordinary English Member such as myself can so easily leave this Chamber without making a contribution, but we are debating the constitution for part of the United Kingdom and must make a decision on it. Therefore, it is not wrong for an English Member to contribute his

views and thoughts and to reflect in some ways the views of his constituents about the decision that this Parliament has to take. Of course we must bow to the greater knowledge of Northern Ireland Members, but at the same time we must take into account the views of other hon. Members in England.
A little over a year ago we decided to apply direct rule to Northern Ireland. I was very saddened at that event, but felt that it was an inevitable decision that the Government had to take to preserve and maintain law and order in that part of the United Kingdom. It was a courageous and wise act. I hoped at the time—indeed, I made a speech in my constituency to this effect—that we could quickly move forward to some devolution of responsibility back to the citizens of Northern Ireland. That is what I said in my constituency on the Friday night when we made that decision.
Many shades of opinion were put to me passionately and sometimes not so well thought out, because people cannot always see and understand this tragic problem as well from this country as can hon. Members and others living in Northern Ireland.
Recently I found myself in the strange position of being faced with a demand, which I was not prepared to accept, that we should pull out of our responsibilities in Northern Ireland altogether. That point was made by only one constituent, but it was made to me personally and passionately. I confess that for once I lost my wool and declared that under no circumstances would I, as the representative of my constituency in England, desert my colleagues in Northern Ireland and, as it were, leave them to their fate. This was much disputed by my constituent who felt that we should be rid of the problem in Northern Ireland, that this was no part of our problem, that the Irish on both sides were behaving wrongly, that this was costing lives in the British Army and that we should shed ourselves of this problem and get on with the job of making the rest of Britain a successful nation economically, socially internationally and so on.
I resisted this very strongly indeed. Moreover, I told my constituent that I was one of those Members of Parliament who had read and studied Burke closely


and followed his precepts about what I felt were my responsibilities. The latter, I felt, were not only to my constituents but to the constituents of the whole of this great country of the United Kingdom.
I recognise, of course, the awful burden borne today by our troops in Northern Ireland. Some of those troops come from my constituency. One of the greatest regiments in the country originally based in my constituency of Canterbury—now called the Queen's Regiment but originally the 2nd Regiment of the Line, the Buffs—I believe I am right in saying have already served some three tours in Northern Ireland. I know from friends and from what I have been told by my constituents of people who have already suffered loss of relatives, friends and others in the British Army in Northern Ireland.
I am very glad that we are today giving time to pass legislation which will move us on to the next stage. It is not the complete stage, it is not the distant horizon of full achievement in Northern Ireland. But the Bill is at least the next stage onwards from that day a little over a year ago when we took direct rule.
It is, I believe, rather wonderful in a way that the Secretary of State has been able so to contain this situation in Northern Ireland for this country, for this House, for this Government, for Britain, for the United Kingdom, that no matter how dangerous and deadly the situation has been, we are able today in peace in this House of Commons to consider a move back towards the devolution of power in Northern Ireland.
As I said, this is not the whole move, When I read the White Paper the day it was published some months ago, I confess that I thought it was not the whole answer. It is not whitewash by any means, but it is not the whole answer. I can understand the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) complaining, as have other hon. Members, that it is not enough. But I say to them that it is a big step. It is a so much better step than that being advocated by some Members and, I suggest, many in Britain today who would be shot of the problem. At least this Parliament is acting not as a body of delegates but of responsible representatives seriously considering the problem facing Britain and the United Kingdom.
I am extremely glad therefore, that we are moving forward out of the system of direct rule to the much better system of almost complete devolution of power to Northern Ireland. I say "almost complete" because I know that it is not complete—and there is the rub. The Northern Ireland Assembly is not completely a Northern Ireland Parliament.
The Secretary of State will remain and, we know, will have special powers of interference. This is an intermediate step. But the Secretary of State with his powers of interference has another power also which I believe has very important value for all the people in Northern Ireland. He sits in the British Cabinet. This is a most important contribution in representing the problem of the people of Northern Ireland at the very centre of power in the United Kingdom.
Many have agreed—I sympathise with them—that there will not be sufficient representation in this House, perhaps a more important centre of power than the Cabinet. This House, after all, sees itself as the ultimate place of decision. It has been argued that 12 Members from Northern Ireland are not enough. It is hard for me to say so, but I disagree with that view. The Secretary of State speaks for Northern Ireland in the Cabinet, and, in this part of the United Kingdom, a large amount of authority and power will devolve on the people of Northern Ireland through their own new Northern Ireland Assembly.
One could say that the Assembly will be a bit of a cocktail. It is not perhaps the sort of organisation that we had originally thought was proposed. It is not the most suitable mixture of representation and power. But I stress again that this is a step back along the road towards giving the people of Northern Ireland self-government—I hope, ultimately, full self-government.
What impressed me most in the White Paper was the statement on page 5 of the three-fold pattern of obligation. This is what I cling to as an English Member longing to give the fullest and most loyal support to those other members of the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland. It says:
The United Kingdom as a whole has an obligation to those of its citizens who live in Northern Ireland to afford them the fullest protection of the rule of law".


The tragedy is that we have not seen the fullest protection of the rule of law working in Northern Ireland. What is keeping us here today to make this legislation is the necessity to get back to that standard.
In one quarter of this greatest democracy in the world, of which other countries are so jealous and to which they look so admiringly, the basis of democracy is not working properly. In this new legislation, we must not forget that we are making a promise. We go on to make another promise, that those who live in Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, also have an obligation to respect the decisions of the Crown in Parliament, and to play their part in creating and upholding an equitable political settlement.
I hear many things said about Irishmen, particularly in Northern Ireland, today—one faction against another, the claim that one cannot trust this one or that one, that they are longing to come to blows with one another. I have not lost my faith yet. I am prepared to give them my trust still, and to ask them to keep the obligation set out in the White Paper.
This is not a pious hope. Let us not forget as we debate this constitutional Bill that this obligation lies behind it. We are not ordering an obligation, but we are saying to people that we believe that they want to respect it. We have to show that we mean what we say. I for my part mean what I say.
In conclusion, this is not perhaps the most perfect constitution for Northern Ireland, but it is the first step on the road back. I understand all the complaints which have been made by those Members from all parties who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland. I can only say that I understand them as an English Member. I have listened at Question Time and in debates on Northern Ireland, as far as I could, and with as much understanding as I have been able to bring to the subject. I respect their concern and anxiety. I appeal to them all, from all parties, to support this Bill today as a step in the right direction.
Finally, I remind the House, too, that into Clause 20 of this Bill is written a subject in which I have the greatest interest, and that is respect for human rights. We know over our history of not

50 years, not 200 years but even longer in Northern Ireland and Ireland as a whole, that this is a problem which has perhaps not been interpreted in the same way as we have interpreted it in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is now written into the Bill. There is an Advisory Commission on Human Rights.
It is very important that as we legislate for the constitution of Northern Ireland and set up this new national Assembly in Northern Ireland, we also recognise that behind it there is a running sore and a running problem of the full recognition of human rights for everyone in Northern Ireland. This Bill seeks to put right that which has been a problem in the past. I am glad that that, too, is included in the Bill. I commend the Bill to everyone in this House, of all parties.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I willingly join my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) in the tribute he has paid to the Army, and especially to the regiment which has strong links with his constituency. As a member of the wartime Royal Air Force, I was attached for a period of instruction to the Buffs. I would like to think that I taught them something in return, but at any rate I have happy memories of our association.
On a graver note, an earlier speaker in the debate stated that he thought this Bill was to a great extent a gamble. I would like to leave the House with the thought that the gamble since 1969 has so far cost us 800 lives.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in an earlier debate reminded us that we are not here in this House to give things a try; neither are we here to gamble. Many people might believe that Parliament is prepared to gamble, and gamble with lives, because it is not prepared to come down firmly in defence of the integrity of the United Kingdom. They would be reinforced in that belief by our debating a Bill tonight which will perpetuate the uncertainties which have existed in Northern Ireland for the past four years.
Several hon. Members have drawn attention to the powers of veto by the Secretary of State. Let it not be imagined that this veto will operate merely in a kind of visible procedural method. It


will be exercised even more effectively by a process of the nod and the wink. Because the Secretary of State will be all powerful, it will be necessary for him only to indicate that he would not look with any great favour on a proposal. That in itself would be sufficient to kill it stone dead. There would, in addition, be 3,100 good reasons multiplied by 78 to reinforce that belief.
But there is another veto—and we are asked to provide for it by Clause 2—which could be imposed, and which I fear will be, by any tiny disgruntled minority. A walk-out on the lines practised on so many occasions at intervals over the past 50 years would in itself be sufficient to bring the entire structure crashing down. We have not forgotten that it was the walk-out by the SDLP from the Stormont Parliament which landed us in this position and which, with the help of the demands and of threats of the IRA, brought about the abolition of Stormont.
But even if those elected to represent the minority in the new Assembly desired to make the system work and to make their contribution to it, there is still the question whether they will be permitted to do so. Will the gunmen allow them to take their place in a democratic structure? I confess that at the moment I see no signs which cause me to be optimistic on that score.
If and when that veto is used, will the majority have to go through all this again? Will the House of Commons go through all this again? Will the House have the courage to retrace its steps and go back and try to work out a rather more orthodox, more viable and more convincing structure? Will the House be prepared to go for what would be the only possible alternative, namely, complete integration with the United Kingdom on the same basis as Scotland, Wales or any other part of the Kingdom?
I now come to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) about the Commission on the Constitution. Surely there would have been some merit in studying its report before embarking on the creation of what is seen by everyone as an artificial structure in one part of the Kingdom. In reply to a Question

earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated that he would study the report of the Commission on the Constitution in connection with the proposal for a Scottish Assembly and that in due course there would be a Green Paper and occasion and scope for public discussion—and no doubt a sounding and assessing of Scottish opinion and a hope that there would be agreement by the majority of people in Scotland —before further action was taken.
Where is there agreement on what is to happen in Northern Ireland? Where is the assurance that even the opinions of those elected to the new Assembly will be heeded? There is no such assurance, but there is instead a clear indication not only that they will be ignored but that if the composition of the Assembly is such as to be unacceptable—I suppose in current terminology this would be the unacceptable face of Unionism—the Assembly might be prorogued or even dissolved.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said at the beginning of the debate that there should be no sitting back during the interval between June of this year and March of next year, and that bearing in mind the pressure that is building up—this was referred to by the hon. Member for Canterbury for the withdrawal of the Army we should work to build a political structure which alone would make such a withdrawal possible.
But two things must be borne in mind, and they are these. First, the plan may not work, and I have to say that my fear is that it will not, in which case there will be no advance whatsoever on the present position. Secondly, even if the plan does work, the IRA will pay not the slightest attention to it. The war will go on in either case.
The British public outside, and hon. Members in this House, should remember that it was the 1969 decision to implement the Hunt Report and break up the internal security system of Northern Ireland which committed the Army to a long-stay basis, with little or no hope of withdrawal. Many of us felt and said that in 1969. But if it is now felt that the Army commitment cannot be sustained, Parliament should go straight to that problem and not fritter


away its time and fritter away more lives attempting what is clearly seen by everyone to be the impossible, and merely causing distraction through the exercise in which we are now participating—this useless Bill.
I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). I do not welcome this particular form of institution to be set up at Stormont. It is neither one thing nor the other. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South and myself, in the debate on the Green Paper, said that we wanted one of two things: either a viable Stormont which would be seen to be stable and would not be regarded as a pushover, or that this Parliament should find the stomach to integrate us wholly into the United Kingdom. We begged Parliament not to go for anything in between. Unfortunately, that is what Her Majesty's Government have done.
If Parliament is not prepared to do better than this, if it cannot erect a better structure than that proposed in the Bill, I return to the point made earlier by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South that there is only one remedy, and that is integration.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: I apologise for my absence for the greater part of the debate. Running through the debate has been the theme that no lasting answer can be found to the problems of Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority. The question that must be posed, in all its bleakness and harshness, is which majority and whose consent?
It is not sufficient to believe that a majority for this policy can be found only in Northern Ireland. When we talk about the boundaries of the United Kingdom, we mean the United Kingdom as a whole. There has been no attempt to ascertain the views of the majority of the people of the United Kingdom. If we talk about Ireland, we must realise that there can be no lasting solution to the problems of that part of the world without the consent of the people of the island as a whole.

Mr. McMaster: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wellbeloved: No, I do not intend to give way. I shall speak only briefly

because at least one other hon. Member wishes to take part in the debate.
There can be no lasting solution, and not even a beginning of an answer to this centuries-old tragedy, until a test of opinion has been taken in Britain and until a test of opinion has been taken throughout Ireland.
I want to comment on the Government's policy and the policy of my right hon and hon Friends of the Opposition. Great Britain has paid a price in blood in Northern Ireland, generation after generation, by following the mistaken policies of successive British Governments. It is high time that we called a halt to the inglorious deaths being suffered by British soldiers following the mistaken policy of Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland.
We are trying to impose on Northern Ireland the unimposable.

Mr. Carol Mather: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wellbeloved: No, for the reasons I have given.
We are trying to impose on Northern Ireland a policy which has not a hope of success because it does not command the support of either the majority of the Irish people or a majority of the people of the United Kingdom. So all those who support this mistaken policy carry the burden of the blood of young soldiers which is spilled, generation after generation, on the battlefields of Belfast and elsewhere in Northern Ireland. This policy must come to an end by a test of opinion of the only majority and the only people who have the power to take such a decision—the people of the United Kingdom and of Ireland as a whole.
Perhaps I may say to my right hon. an hon. Friends who have supported the Government with complete integrity and with full knowledge of the realities of the situation that we in the Labour Party will come to be ashamed of the part we are now playing in the re-enactment of the tragedy of Ireland in supporting the provisions in the Bill that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom so long as the majority in Northern Ireland wish it. That is a fallacious doctrine which cannot succeed, because it flies in the face of reality. The sooner my right hon. and hon. Friends and the


Government recognise that fact, the sooner we shall contribute to an ending of the bloodshed in Northern Ireland

9.1 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I know that the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) holds very strong views on this subject, and I do not think that at this hour it would serve a useful purpose for me to challenge the points he made and about which he feels so strongly. I rise with apologies because I have been absent throughout the debate for reasons of Select Committee work and it is a discourtesy to the House to rise at the last moment, as I am doing. I am surprised that it is possible for me to do so and I find it a little ominous that it should be the case.
Perhaps I should say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr)—I shall deal with his amendment in a moment—that when we call for increased representation in this House one question that should arise in our minds is how much of the legislation and the affairs of Northern Ireland the House is prepared to digest. We are at the moment suffering some slight surfeit of legislation and I see this reflected in the state of the benches here tonight.
It is fair to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on one thing. The Bill is in a sense a Part II Bill, because Part I has already gone through the necessary stages in response to the urgent request some of us made that the elections should be held in June and not in the autumn. We should not be dealing with this Bill in the way we are if that were not a fact, and those of us who now contemplate what a general election in the autumn would look like will think that the advice we gave earlier for a June election was indeed right.
I want to deal with the amendment which has been tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South and others of my hon. Friends and towards which in some sense I feel sympathetic. However, I should like to address myself to certain parts of it. It is like the curate's egg—it is good in parts, and with parts of it I find myself in a good deal of sympathy. Perhaps for the purposes of debate I may deal

first with those parts about which I feel sympathetic.
I have my own feelings about the Governor and whether or not it is necessary for the office to be abolished. Its abolition probably increases the fears of those who think that the powers of the Secretary of State will not only be strong but will remain strong for a long time, which is not a belief I share. I have a sympathetic feeling towards that objection by my hon. and gallant Friend.
Again, when my hon. and gallant Friends deals with power sharing and the feelings I know he has about that, I feel sympathetic. I do not believe that in a democracy a system has yet been devised in which a majority can be anything but a majority and a minority anything but a minority. If one tries to get a solution between those two positions, the result is a muddle and probably a worse muddle than existed at the start. I share all the scepticism of those who think that power sharing is destined to be a nonsense. I sympathise with my hon. and gallant Friend on these two points.
I now come to two points on which I do not go all the way with my hon. and gallant Friend. The first is the question of representation in this House. It is true that it remains at 12 Members, and that if certain circumstances arise 12 Members would not be sufficient to represent the interests of the North. But the point is that if the Bill increased the representation here, it would make permanent a state of affairs which must limit the powers of the Assembly in Northern Ireland. We can always adjust what we propose to do in the North, and one of the objectives of the Bill is to give the Secretary of State flexibility in the powers he exercises, but we cannot play ducks and drakes with representation in this House. If we have 12 Members it will remain at 12 and cannot be amended in six months' time, and if we have 18 Members we will likewise be unable to amend the figure later.
My hon. and gallant Friend and his hon. Friends probably hope that the proposed Assembly will succeed and show itself to be capable of assuming a degree of responsibility which is not perhaps full envisaged in the Bill. Their amendment is about the lack of responsibility, the lack of trust reposed in the Assembly.


If representation were increased here, it would limit expectations of what the Assembly would be capable of doing. In this respect I think that my hon. and gallant Friend is inconsistent in that part of his amendment.

Captain Orr: I understand my right hon. Friend's thinking on this matter, but he was not present when I dealt with the point. With many of my hon. Friends, I look upon the increase in representation in this House as a fallback position in the absence of proper devolution. But the point which my right hon. Friend made about power sharing being an essential condition of devolution in the Bill demolishes his own argument that it is a valid alternative to proper representation.

Mr. Deedes: My hon. and gallant Friend has given his point of view, and I have given mine. I will leave it at that.
My second point is to challenge my hon. and gallant Friend on his anxieties about the powers of the Secretary of State. What is all-important is whether the powers are fixed or conditional, whether they are conditional on the success of the Bill or whether they are fixed and immutable. I do not regard them as fixed and immutable. I think they are conditional on what my right hon. Friend envisages working out. He does not give the impression of being a Secretary of State who is thirsting for power and anxious to retain power for as long as he can. My impression is that nothing would make him happier than to see the Assembly become capable of taking from his shoulders some of the burdens he is now carrying. That gives me a certain instinct towards that part of the amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) spoke about a formula here which he regarded as doomed. I hope he is wrong, because this would be a bad message to send out on the subject of the Bill. The Bill will succeed or fail according to the will of the people in Northern Ireland to make it work. If they are given an impression from this House that we do not have faith in its capacity to work, I think that it is very likely to fail. But their will to make it work—not what we say in this relatively unimportant debate—will be the decisive factor. Their will

ultimately, and not our wishes, will prove decisive.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: A great deal of comment has been made about the attendance this afternoon. If the Northern Ireland hon. Members were taken away from both sides of the House the attendance would be very small. I agree that that should be taken as a warning that hon. Members on both sides are becoming a little tired with Northern Ireland affairs and the pressure they are bringing on the business of the House. There is a feeling of almost desperation about whether something will be done. That reflects in a sense what hon. Members say that their constituents are saying to them.
Rather than finding in our postbags suggested solutions, we are increasingly receiving the suggestion, "Drop it and get out." That should be a warning to everyone in Northern Ireland that there is not an unlimited amount of time. If a change of policy were forced by the failure of the Assembly to work following the elections, the Government and the Opposition might be faced with some unpleasant decisions. Such decisions might not run along the lines of the policies which some hon. Members wish to see introduced.

Mr. Maginnis: I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) is proposing. There is far too much time taken up by Northern Ireland legislation. But he must admit that he is one of the hon. Members who in the early stages of the controversy in Northern Ireland wanted more discussion in this House of Northern Ireland affairs.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that I am still here. I am saying that it is the people who are not here about whom we should be concerned. People are becoming disenchanted not only with the day-to-day business but with the politics of Northern Ireland. We might as well face reality. That brings us up against some difficult decisions.
What solutions have been put forward? It is interesting that once again the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South-West (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey), who come from opposite ends of the spectrum,


arrive basically at the same conclusion. First, they say that the Assembly will not work, that it would be wrong to try to make it work and that the solution lies in another direction. The right hon. Gentleman says that the solution lies in full integration with the United Kingdom willynilly or irrespective of the minority. He does not tell us whether he would redraw the boundaries or what he would do with the minority in Northern Ireland. The hon. Lady says that the Assembly will not work because the minority are demanding a united Ireland and nothing short of that.

Mrs. McAliskey: It is wrong for my hon. Friend to draw that conclusion. That is not what I said. I stand on record as having said repeatedly that we do not want a united Ireland at this precise moment because the kind of united Ireland that I want does not lie on the other side of the border. I accept that it is a long struggle. I am saying that it would be wrong to seek to make the Assembly work and that it would be impossible to make it work because it is of its own nature unworkable.

Mr. Orme: I understand what my hon. Friend says. She has a duty to explain what would work but she has not done that. She is a superb demolisher, as is the right hon. Gentleman, of issues which come before the House. We must consider what is to be put in their place. I am treating the arguments extremely seriously. The right hon. Gentleman went to the kernel of the problem when he referred to the diametrically opposed views which exist in Northern Ireland.
We support these proposals but there are many points which we shall criticise in Committee. We support the proposals because we see them as providing at least an interim measure between the two stark alternatives. That is the reason for our support of the Bill.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Mr. Orr) described the Bill as defective. There may be certain defects in it. There may be alternatives. There is no argument basically about devolution, but Clause 1(1)(b) is open to a great variety of interpretations and a great deal of power will fall upon the Secretary of State. He will have many problems and difficulties.

The argument we have heard from some hon. Members opposite is rather odd. They say that the Assembly will not work. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) told of the dire consequences which will fall upon our heads because of this Assembly. Yet he then told us that we shall not see him again until after 30th June because he is fighting for election to the Assembly. There are 1,200 candidates in the local government elections. There are lists as long as one's arm of people hoping to get elected to the Assembly. I do not know whether the Assembly will work or not, but a lot of people are trying to get in the doors. I see this as a safety valve, and it certainly gives ground for hope.
I want to underline some of the points that have been raised, particularly about Clause 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has his view about Clause 1 and he has been consistent throughout. Of course there is great difficulty about Clause 1 and how one would arrive at a decision to change, for example, the status of Northern Ireland.
There was a great deal of pressure among hon. Members opposite for the border plebiscite. The people who were of the persuasion of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South voted very strongly to express their point of view in that plebiscite. But there is a difficulty here which we must recognise. If, in a border poll in 10 years' time, the figure was 51·1 per cent. in favour of reunification, or even 49·5 per cent. in favour, whichever way it went, such a narrow majority for or against would create great problems. I do not think that such problems can be resolved by a border poll.
The Opposition stand by the original suggestion which we have supported consistently—that we cannot force 1 million Protestants into a united Ireland, whether one supports the idea of a united Ireland or not. The question whether the rest of the people of the United Kingdom should be consulted is now coming to the fore. The political developments of the Assembly will determine whether there will be pressure within the rest of the United Kingdom for a reassessment or reappraisal of the position.
I say to those who talk of wrecking the Assembly that in advocating such policies they may bring down upon their heads such wrath as will be difficult to turn aside. I stand by what I have always said, and what all the parties within the Republic have said—that there can be no unification by force, that the majority in Northern Ireland cannot be forced into a united Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman looked in my direction when he talked about wrecking the Assembly.

Mr. Orme: No.

Mr. Kilfedder: Our point is that the Assembly is unworkable. We are not out to wreck it. We should like to see it improved and a proper parliamentary institution established.

Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman says that it is unworkable. Perhaps he should use his considerable talents to seek election to the Assembly, as some of his friends are doing, and see whether it could not be made to work.

Mr. Stratton Mills: He is standing for election.

Mr. Orme: A great number of people are trying to get elected and, in doing so, they have a duty to examine it.
The point has been made about power sharing within the Assembly. The way to deal with this is to move from sectarian balances in Northern Ireland and to reach economic-based political parties. Then the Secretary of State would probably be pleased to drop many of the powers he is given in the Bill. We are not yet at that position. I am pleased that we are not dealing with this in terms of the statutory percentage of Catholics or Protestants and so on. We must move away from that. Naturally there has to be the kind of representation which broadly reflects the people in the community.
In the past I have pressed for a representation in the police force which involved a balancing of two to one and so on. It will not work. It is no solution to the problem. We must move away from that. That is one of the lessons I have learned. We cannot parcel everything up neatly. In doing so we only

underline the differences and the sectarian problems within the community.
We still feel that the bans and proscriptions should be lifted. We have the anomalous position whereby Sinn Fein is banned, yet we know that it is putting up candidates in different parts of Northern Ireland. We ought to bring such people into the open, let them stand under their own colours and test the support there is for them through the ballot box.
Hon. Members have touched on the question of violence and whether certain people would be allowed to sit in the Assembly. I draw the attention of hon. Members to the speech made the other evening in the Creggan Estate, Londonderry, by Mr. John Hume. He said the real and fundamental choice facing the Northern Ireland community in both local government and Assembly elections was a choice between politics and war and between political means and violent means of resolving community problems. The SDLP stood firmly, clearly and unequivocally, said Mr. Hume, on the side of politics. I think that is a courageous statement to be made by a politician on the Creggan Estate at this time.
The Alliance Party has made a similar statement, and I hope that all parties in Northern Ireland will follow the example and say that this is an issue of politics not war, of the ballot box not the gun. Such an attitude can do nothing but good.
The right hon. Gentleman must be concerned about the shooting of Mr. Patrick Callaghan who was canvassing on behalf of a Northern Ireland party in the Belfast area the other evening. This was an unfortunate and tragic event and I hope that measures will be taken to protect such people. It will do a great deal of damage if people are prevented from crossing the divide and canvassing in areas which do not necessarily belong to their own sectarian persuasion. It is right that candidates of different political or religious persuasions should expose themselves to the ideas of those who disagree with them.
It is difficult to have a reasonable exchange of views and discussions with politicians of different religious persuasions in Northern Ireland. Here, although there may be violent disagreement, it is possible to have a normal


political dialogue. It is unfortunate that one cannot have a normal dialogue with Northern Ireland politicians, but I hope that it will be possible in future.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want to be unfair to the people of Northern Ireland. The first time I addressed a meeting at Rasharkin, in my constituency, the Union Jack was seized and burnt, but last night when I addressed a similar meeting many people who had attacked my people at the previous meeting listened and asked questions which were answered.

Mr. Orme: That is an encouraging sign and I hope that it will continue. It almost seems that the election started in this House this afternoon and that the campaign has got under way. Although there has been a great deal of criticism, different criticisms have been expressed, and that is encouraging because it demonstrates that people have differing points of view. It will obviously be a hard-and closely-fought election.
The Bill does not set up a Council of Ireland but there are to be powers of negotiation. Although foreign affairs is a reserved subject, there are many issues on which there could be immediate discussion between the new Assembly Executive and the Irish Republic—for example, television, power, roads, tourism, economics, the border, and possibly transport and policing. A discussion on these subjects between the two parts of Ireland would be of immense value. Hon. Members should not look too warily at the Irish dimension. Free and frank discussion would be in the interests of the people of the Republic and of Northern Ireland.
We are sorry that there is no Bill of Human Rights. We welcome the private industry report which is to be published shortly on job discrimination. We still feel the necessity for a Bill of Rights to guarantee both for the minority and the majority the basic human rights that are enjoyed throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
The subject which has caused the greatest amount of argument today is power sharing and the powers of the Secretary of State. I think there will be many problems. After the elections I do not think that it will be for the Secretary

of State to act as a Governor in the sense of sending for people. I hope that negotiations will take place amongst the parties that are elected on the basis of putting them in a strong position to be able to say to the Secretary of State, "This is what we want and this is how we think it will work."
We recognise that we are at the crossroads. We are in a great deal of difficulty in regard to Northern Ireland. To those who say that Northern Ireland is underrepresented here, I suggest that these devolutionary measures go a great deal of the way to meet many of their arguments. I have no doubt that improvements can be made. But let no one forget that we are discussing 1·6 million people in the United Kingdom who are to have 12 Members of Parliament plus an Assembly initiating and passing legislation. In this Bill, £400 million has been allocated for subvention to Northern Ireland. I come from a conurbation area of the United Kingdom containing just under 3 million people, many of whom will think that Northern Ireland is being exceedingly well serviced under these proposals. To those who are critical of these proposals I say, "Think what the reaction would be if these matters were explained fully to people in the rest of the United Kingdom."
I fully support the idea of devolution. I am all for monetary support. I want to see the end of unemployment. I want to see economic growth. If we can only get full employment in Northern Ireland, one of the major obstacles to ending the sectarian situation there will have been overcome.
If we can get some form of détente we may see a type of political development which will allow a new police force to resume responsibility for law and order, with the Army being phased out. The Opposition want to see many of the powers of the Secretary of State not being used. We want the Bill which at present we are discussing in Committee to fall into disuse and to be replaced. We want to see the end of internment
If we can get some stability in Northern Ireland we may find that some of the growing irritation which is now beginning to show itself in the rest of the United Kingdom will be de-fused. It is worth emphasising that there is the


growing feeling that something has to be done. By this Bill, I believe that we shall be able to achieve at least a beginning.
I take encouragement from the fact that, despite the criticism and arguments of those who say that they intend to see that this legislation does not work and despite the fact that the Secretary of State has taken power to deal with that situation if it arises, we are beginning to see a sudden flood of enthusiasm for the elections, for candidates and for representation in the Assembly.
The Opposition support the Bill. We are critical of certain aspects of it and we shall seek to amend them in Committee. But we believe the Bill to be essential. No other workable alternative has been put forward in this Chamber. On that basis we say, "Yes. We support the proposals."

9.34 p.m.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): During the time remaining in this debate it is my hope to say a few words about the very important financial provisions in the Bill. Various hon. Members have touched upon them in the debate but there has not yet been an opportunity to expand upon them.
Before doing that, however, I want to try to answer some of the points which have been raised. It has been a rather lightly attended debate, but most of the fundamental issues have been well and truly touched upon, and I shall try to meet some of them.
It is obviously appropriate that I begin at the beginning with Clause 1, on which a point was raised at the start of the debate by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). He asked why Clause 1 contains the phrase
remains part of Her Majesty's dominions".
The simple answer is that this is the precise wording in the 1949 Act and it was thought right and proper, as I believe it is, that there should be no change in that wording. There is no particular reason why there should be. There is no deep and subtle meaning behind this. These are simply the precise words of the 1949 Act reproduced here.
On Clause 1 the hon. Gentleman also raised, as did many other hon. Members,

the bigger question of a poll. It seemed this evening that the idea of plebiscites and polls had become an orphaned idea because, while hon. Members opposite have never made a secret of the fact that they do not much like the idea, I was rather surprised to hear my hon. Friends on this side of the House cast doubt on the whole idea, particularly in the light of the enthusiasm they showed for this idea only a few months back.
If there is no wish for a poll, there need not be a poll. All that the clause does it to make provision for a poll to be carried out in accordance with the undertakings given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and in accordance with the 1949 Act and previous legislation. If in 10 years' time it is felt inappropriate to have a poll, there need be no poll.

Mr. Kilfedder: Who decides whether there should be a poll? With regard to the earlier point, I did not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman right at the beginning but I have always been against a poll. I was against the Common Market, but none the less I was against a plebiscite in this country, and I do not think that a poll is the answer.

Mr. Howell: I am asked who decides. Obviously, the answer is that Her Majesty's Government and this House decide whether there should be a poll in the circumstances that exist, but there is no obligation in Clause 1 for there to be a poll.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South also raised—as again did other hon. Members—the question of the Irish dimension and Clause 12. I think there is some misunderstanding here, because Clause 12 does not deal so much with legislation and legislative authority as with giving authority to the Northern Ireland Executive, in the words of Clause 12(1)(a), to
consult on any matter with any authority of the Republic of Ireland".
In other words, it specifically gives the Northern Ireland authorities power to consult authorities in the Republic on any matter and to reach agreements or arrangements with them in respect of any transferred matter.
If, as a result of discussions or administrative arrangements, specific statutory


powers were required to enable the agreements to be put into effect, the Northern Ireland Assembly would have to pass a measure in the normal way, and if that dealt with a transferred matter it would be treated under the Bill as reserve legislation. This is the effect of paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 to the Bill. In other words, the measure would require consent and Parliament would have an opportunity to consider it. But this does not rule out in any way the authority of the Northern Ireland Executive to consult any authority in the Republic of Ireland on any matters and to make arrangements that do not require statutory authority. I hope that this makes the extent of Clause 12 clear.
I come now to the nub of the Bill and the matter to which hon. Members on both sides have reverted again and again. The point has been made that in Clause 2(1), and in paragraph (b) in particular, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is given wide powers and wide discretion when deciding the criteria upon which power can be devolved. Let me say quite specifically that of course the Government would be quite prepared to consider any constructive proposals in Committee for the rewording of Clause 2(1)(b) in such a way as to make the matter clearer.
However, we must bear in mind and recognise that, while there is a need of clarity, it would be wrong and against the purpose of the Bill to tie down the Secretary of State too precisely. Indeed, if that were done it might create an absurdly rigid situation of the kind that the whole philosophy of the Bill, with its move towards flexibility, is designed to avoid. Rigidity would certainly go against the spirit of Clause 2(1)(a) in that it would deny to the Assembly precisely the scope for making its own arrangements which the clause allows. I hope that this makes clear the Government's view on Clause 2(1)(a) and (b). If the spirit of the Bill is to be carried out, the main purpose must be not to tie down an established criterion so rigidly as to make it impossible for the Secretary of State to carry out his functions under the Bill.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South also asked about paragraph 52 of the White

Paper. He suggested that it did not seem to tie in with Clause 2(1)(b) of the Bill which is intended to give effect to that paragraph. If it does not immediately appear to do so, may I say that this arises from the difficulty of translating White Paper language into legal language. However, the intention is there and I understand that that intention is given force by the words contained in Clause 2(1)(b) as they stand.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the numbers on the Executive. This arises under Clause 8(3) which provides that 12 should be the maximum, but we expect there to be rather fewer. The purpose of having a limit of 12 is to give some latitude if more powers are transferred in future or if more flexibility is needed. That is the reasoning there.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and other hon. Members asked about a Bill of Rights. The hon. Member said that the Opposition had always hoped for a Bill of Rights. We must look at the extensive provisions being offered in the Bill and accept that it is proposing a Standing Advisory Commission which will deal not only with generalities, but will go in great detail into the practicalities of how discrimination can be avoided in a number of specific areas. It is the Government's view—a practical and soundly-based view—that this goes a good deal further than a general statement that might be embodied in a Bill of Rights. A Bill of Rights is all very fine and sounds magnificent when written up in 10 clauses, or whatever it may be, but, coming down to the practical details, we believe that our method, a Standing Advisory Commission, has a cutting edge which a Bill of Rights would not have.

Mr. Orme: Will the Standing Advisory Commission he able to bring forward proposals which the Government could put into legislation to extend and strengthen what is already in the Bill?

Mr. Howell: Yes, it certainly would be able to bring forward advice of that kind.
One final point raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South and by other hon. Members—indeed, it has been raised not only tonight, but one almost every night in the last year or 14 months when


we have been legislating on Northern Ireland affairs—concerned the time allowed for and the constraints placed upon trying to deal with our affairs within one and a half hours. On orders of major importance there certainly could be discussions through the usual channels to ascertain whether more time might be allowed.

Rev. Ian Paisley: This is a knotty problem for the people concerned. Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that a promise made by the former Leader of the House to Northern Ireland Members—that when the usual channels are consulted they should be told what the usual channels have agreed—is carried out so that at the end of the day we might know what opportunities we would have to discuss these matters?

Mr. Howell: I will call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Time has been given before for such things.
I turn to the financial provisions because these are of crucial importance and affect greatly one's view of the extent of devolution actually involved in the Bill. The main financial provisions are Clauses 13 to 16 in Part II and Clause 37.
I remind the House, particularly in the light of what the hon. Member for Salford, West said, of the Government's broad economic and financial objectives in Northern Ireland. These are clearly stated in the White Paper. In the way of things they may not come through so clearly in the language of the Bill itself. They were, and remain, as stated in paragraph 86: to accomplish as rapidly as possible the task of physical reconstruction and rehabilitation; to create a sound base for the economy and to encourage external investment; and to work progressively towards the achievement of similar standards of living to those which prevail in Great Britain.
If the financial relationship between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is to be judged satisfactorily, it must achieve two things. First, it must work, on the practical and administrative level, so that the various taxes, payments, transfers, charges and so on, are properly and efficiently executed with the minimum

amount of staff. Second, in a democracy, it is important that the arrangements are capable of coherent presentation to Parliament and to the people so that people understand what is happening. These are matters of public interest and account so that in the making of new financial arrangements we are under an obligation, as I believe we have recognised, wherever possible to make them as open and uncomplicated as possible. People will not be able to judge whether the system is fair if they cannot understand it.
The Bill gives effect to the scheme outlined in paragraphs 83 and 84 of the White Paper. Some aspects of the financial relationship established by the 1920 Act, and later additions, are discarded and simplified. As several hon. Members have noted, the Joint Exchequer Board, the annual Imperial Contribution, the word "Exchequer" itself, certain statutory special payments to Northern Ireland, such as the Health and Social Services payment, all come to an end. Clause 13 makes clear that the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund continues to exist, and since the Fund continues in existence without interruption it continues to attract all its assets and liabilities as at present. Clause 13 also confirms the continuing rôle of the Northern Ireland Comptroller and Auditor-General, whose reports will be available to this House as regards the period of direct rule, and to the Assembly once devolution has occurred.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South asked about a Public Accounts Committee. If he looks at Clause 25(7), he will see in terms that it is made mandatory that the Assembly shall have such a Committee. Thus for accounts and for expenditures arising from the Assembly and the Northern Ireland Executive, that would be the process of scrutinising the public accounts. Matters arising on the Budget of the Northern Ireland office would come before the Public Accounts Committee of the House if it were so wished. However, there will be a Public Accounts Committee in the Assembly.
Clause 14 provides for an important measure of control over legislation which creates or charges expenditure. This procedure is similar to the Sovereign's Recommendation required under Standing Orders of this House and will be


exercised by the head of the Department of Finance. A similar procedure operated at Stormont previously.
Clause 15 is the major financial clause since it describes how Northern Ireland shall be paid its share of United Kingdom taxation. This in my view is extremely important. The concept of the Northern Ireland residuary share of reserved taxation goes and is replaced by the Northern Ireland share of the United Kingdom taxes, which is to be determined by the Treasury according to regulations which will be laid before Parliament. Under Clause 16, the Secretary of State will take power to make a general grant-in-aid of Northern Ireland's revenue resources. This is a continuation of the system introduced in the Northern Ireland (Financial Provisions) Act 1972. Under the Bill, the grant-in-aid will be capable of comprising the separate special payments which are to come to an end, as I described earlier. Although Northern Ireland for the foreseeable future will undoubtedly require a large grant-in-aid to supplement its revenue, the assumption of the cost of excepted and reserved matters in London, dealing with law and order, and compensation for the time being, coupled with plausible alterations in tax yields and other feasible changes, like the growth of payments from European sources, suggest that the new financial arrangements should include provision for a possible—I emphasise, only possible—deduction from Northern Ireland's proper share of tax proceeds. This is contained in Clause 15(4), but no contribution would be payable without the prior approval of the House of Commons. As the White Paper says, the Imperial Contribution, which was an annual payment in respect of stated imperial burdens, is discontinued.
What will the financial powers of the new Northern Ireland authorities be?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the Minister recall that the Government issued advice about these Northern Ireland financial arrangements which has been invaluable in the past year? Would they consider issuing the new arrangements in some such form? It will save a great deal of time.

Mr. Howell: We will certainly agree to do that. It sounds a very good idea.
Turning to the subject of revenue, the Northern Ireland authorities will receive a proper share of United Kingdom taxation as determined by the Treasury according to rules laid down in a statutory instrument. In practice—I can reassure hon. Members on this—the attribution and the sum will be broadly similar to that produced under the existing system. Most of the previously transferred tax powers will pass to United Kingdom authorities but—this is important—the freedom of Stormont in the past to legislate in this area was somewhat illusory. This is my own view. Northern Ireland will, of course, receive its full share of the proceeds of the former transferred taxes, and the Assembly will be able to introduce new taxes if it so wishes.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the formula to be fixed by the Treasury under Clause 15(2) be laid down in consultation with the Northern Ireland Department of Finance?

Mr. Howell: There is no reason why there should not be consultation of all kinds necessary. Regulations will be issued by the Treasury and will be available to be seen by the House.
The availability of grants-in-aid from the Secretary of State represents a major addition to the revenue resources of Northern Ireland.
Although there is no need to make provision in the Bill, the new authorities will have the same power to raise money by loans as the former Government. Those who lend to the new authorities will, as in the past, base their security on the considerable revenue resources of Northern Ireland, and its continuing right to borrow money from the National Loans Fund within the limits imposed by Parliament. Borrowing by Northern Ireland will continue to be backed by this considerable range of resources.
Finally, I come to the powers of the Executive with regard to expenditure. Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom economy which itself has to operate within the framework, for instance, of the EEC. The overall level of Northern Ireland public expenditure must


continue to be matched with the policies currently governing expenditure for the United Kingdom as a whole. However, as paragraphs 88 and 89 of the White Paper explain, it will be for Northern Ireland to determine the priorities in dividing the available resources for a whole range of important programmes, including education, health and personal social services, housing, roads and local environmental services. Some will say that there will have to be a measure of harmony with policies in Great Britain. To some extent this will be a matter for the Assembly, it is true. It is nevertheless the intention, which will be borne out, I think, that Northern Ireland should exercise its own choices in developing the range of services that fall into this cataegory, and that suit the needs of the people of Northern Ireland.
At the same time, it is worth remembering—this point has not been made today—that the new Assembly will have a number of important functions previously reserved to local authorities. These will now be brought to the central Government in Belfast, the new Assembly under the Macrory reforms, and the power to levy rates will now rest with the central authority in Belfast.
Therefore, in that sense it can be said with confidence that the new Assembly will have functions and responsibilities which did not rest with the former Stormont Parliament. At the same time, as I have already mentioned, the Assembly will have freedom to devise new taxes. As my right hon. Friend began by saying this afternoon, it will have a new power which the previous Stormont Parliament did not have—to legislate on reserved matters.
If one adds up those developments, it becomes quite valid to say that the new Assembly will have considerable powers and considerable scope to legislate. It becomes right to reject strongly the proposition that in some way the new Assembly will be a weakling and that its powers will be useless or invalid. There is nothing in what I have just said to justify assertions of that kind. That should be made clear.
No one will pretend that the problems of Northern Ireland can be magically solved by the set of proposals put forward in the Bill this evening. Those who

are inclined to look for cut-and-dried solutions will obviously be disappointed. We have heard one or two comments of that kind this afternoon.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), in a precise and eloquent speech, said that Her Majesty's Government were attempting the impossible. Of course, I concede that in our job in Northern Ireland—and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends must feel this too—it sometimes does feel as though in our efforts we are attempting to achieve the impossible. One would be less than human if one did not admit that at times one yearned for the world of simple choices and simple courses in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South-West sometimes seems to live.
But, of course, it is not like that. The task before us is not like that. The task before us is to provide a framework in which the divisions, the bitterness and the headaches which cannot be wished away or regarded as non-existent can be channelled, can be lessened and can be brought back into a framework of politics rather than a framework of hatred.
I do not think anyone can proclaim that we are offering magic proposals in the Bill. Nor should it be claimed that the political and constitutional proposals are in some way a contained alternative to the situation obtaining in Northern Ireland. It can be claimed that these proposals will at least make possible the search for peace and stability in the Province and will help at least to establish a climate in which political debate can continue vigorously without receding once again into blind fear, hate and violence.
It is always possible to put the worst construction on measures such as those we are proposing in the Bill. It is always possible to show how, in logic, they cannot work and to show how no new structure is possible, and indeed that only what already exists is right and rational. The proposals in the Bill spring from a different mind than that which would produce those arguments. They flow from the firm belief that it is possible with good will and trust to establish a system of government which can accommodate the inevitable political battles—and those will go on—without itself being destroyed. In other words, the proposals


here are for reasonable men seeking to live at peace and in conditions of prosperity. It is our belief that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland fall into this category. That is why we

seek the support of the House for the Bill tonight.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 7.

Division No. 143.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gray, Hamish
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Green, Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Astor, John
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morrison, Charles


Atkins, Humphrey
Grylls, Michael
Murton, Oscar


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Neave, Airey


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Nott, John


Batsford, Brian
Hamilton, Michael, (Salisbury)
Onslow, Cranley


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Osborn, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Biffen, John
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Blaker, Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Havers, Sir Michael
Parkinson, Cecil


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Peel, Sir John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hayhoe, Barney
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Bowden, Andrew
Heseltine, Michael
Pink, R. Bonner


Braine, Sir Bernard
Higgins, Terence L.
Pounder, Rafton


Bray, Ronald
Hiley, Joseph
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Holland, Philip
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Buck, Antony
Hordern, Peter
Raison, Timothy


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hornby, Richard
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Carlisle, Mark
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Relgate)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Howell, David (Guildford)
Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Channon, Paul
Hunt, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Chapman, Sydney
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Iremonger, T. L.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Chichester-Clark, R.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)


Churchill, W. S.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Royle, Anthony


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jessel, Toby
Russell, Sir Ronald


Cockeram, Eric




Cooke, Robert
Johnson Smith G. (E. Grinstead)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Coombs, Derek
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Scott, Nicholas


Cooper, A. E.
Jopling, Michael
Scott-Hopkins, James


Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Costain, A. P.
Kershaw, Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Crouch, David
Kimball, Marcus
Sinclair, Sir George


Crowder, F. P.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Spence, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen. Jack
Kinsey, J. R.
Sproat, Iain


Dean, Paul
Knox, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Lamont, Norman
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Le Marchant, Spencer
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sutcliffe, John


Elliot, Capt. Waller (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Tapsell, Peter


Emery, Peter
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)


Eyre, Reginald
Loveridge, John
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Farr, John
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
McCrindle, R. A.
Tebbit, Norman


Fidler, Michael
McLaren, Martin
Temple, John M.


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)



Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Madel, David
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Fortescue, Tim
Marten, Nell
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Foster, Sir John
Mather, Carol
Tilney, John


Fowler, Norman
Mawby, Ray
Tope, Graham


Fox, Marcus
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Fry, Peter
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Trew, Peter


Gardner, Edward
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Tugendhat, Christopher


Gibson-Watt, David
Miscampbell, Norman
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell,Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard


Glyn, Dr. Alan
Moate, Roger
Vickers, Dame Joan


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Money, Ernie
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Goodhew, Victor
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)


Gorst, John
Monro, Hector
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Gower, Raymond
Montgomery, Fergus
Walters, Dennis


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
More, Jasper
Ward, Dame Irene




Warren, Kenneth
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


White, Roger (Gravesend)
Worsley, Marcus
Mr. Walter Clegg.


Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.



Wiggin, Jerry
Younger, Hn. George



Wilkinson, John






NOES


Kilfedder, James
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Molyneaux, James
Soref, Harold
Mr. Stanley R McMaster and


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wellbeloved, James
Mr. John E. Maginnis.


Paisley, Rev. Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

Committee tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make new provision for the government of Northern Ireland, it is expedient to authorise payments out of moneys provided by Parliament and payments out of or into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Peter Mills.]

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (ROAD TRAFFIC)

10.11 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): I beg to move,
That the Road Traffic (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order, a draft of which was laid before this House on 9th May 1973, be approved.
First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on his elevation to the Opposition Front Bench.
Last year in Northern Ireland there were 5,261 road accidents in which 372 people were killed, 2,430 seriously injured and 5,595 slightly injured, making a total of 8,397 casualties. While it is only to be expected that more extensive publicity is given to those killed and injured in civil disturbances in Northern Ireland, the fact remains that over the past three years substantially more people have been killed and injured in road accidents in Northern Ireland than as a result of the civil disturbances.
This is a sobering thought, particularly as road accidents mount up to a serious social problem which will continue to be present long after the disturbances have ended. It is, of course, also a problem shared on a much larger scale by the rest of the United Kingdom. It would be unrealistic to present the order as a "cure-all" for road accidents, but its main purpose is to bring Northern Ireland law more closely into line with that in Great Britain on a wide variety of miscellaneous matters, including several of importance to road safety. Driving licences issued in Great Britain are valid in Northern Ireland and vice versa, and it is accordingly desirable that similar standards should be applied. I do not think anybody would disagree with that.
The order enables regulations to be made which will permit driving licences to be granted in carefully defined circumstances to controlled epileptics. Driving test standards in Northern Ireland are already the same as in Great Britain and Article 3 will enable the same standards of physical fitness to be applied. At present the six county councils and the two county boroughs in Northern Ireland

are the responsible licensing authorities in relation to driver licensing. Following local government reorganisation the eight local licensing authorities will cease to exist, and Article 15 of the order therefore provides for the transfer of driver licensing functions to the Ministry of Home Affairs on 1st October 1973. This is in line with the position in Great Britain, where the Department of the Environment is the single licensing authority.
I now turn to the inspection of vehicles, which is very important. Although Northern Ireland can boast of a scheme of goods vehicle inspection dating back to 1934, over 30 years before its introduction in Great Britain, there is at present no scheme in existence for the annual testing of private cars. Many of the cars currently used on the roads in Northern Ireland are in such poor condition that they would have no hope of passing the MOT test. Some of us who have been over there for some little time can witness to that fact.
While it is difficult to determine precisely the part played by mechanical defects in the causation of accidents it is estimated to be a contributory factor in between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. of all accidents. The order provides for the introduction of a scheme of annual inspection for private cars to be carried out by the Ministry's Vehicle Inspection and Driving Test Branch. This will be a comprehensive inspection of the vehicle carried out by an independent and impartial examiner. In this way it is hoped to avoid most of the problems experienced when testing is done by authorised commercial garages.
Initially it is proposed that the scheme will apply to cars over 10 years old, but the order permits the scheme to be extended progressively down the age range. In addition to providing for annual inspection, the order also extends the powers of authorised officers to carry out roadside checks of all vehicles in all age-groups and provides for the service of prohibition notices in respect of vehicles which are so defective as to constitute an immediate risk to public safety.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman states that an authorised officer may check vehicles at the roadside.


Would the power be limited to a constable in uniform, or would it also apply to an officer of the Ministry, who evidently would not be in uniform?

Mr. Mills: The power would be for the constable.
I now turn to something which is extremely important these days, with so many goods going on the roads. The order also extends the existing powers to regulate drivers' hours of duty. No immediate changes are envisaged here, but the amendments are considered desirable to enable the domestic law on drivers' hours to be brought into line with the requirements of the EEC regulations which will apply to domestic journeys in Great Britain and Northern Ireland after 1976.
I now turn to the matter of traffic wardens. In Great Britain the powers of traffic wardens have already been extended to enable them to carry out additional duties, and the order provides for a similar extension of powers in Northern Ireland, where there is an at least equal if not greater need for wardens to act in relief of the police. I am sure hon. Members will agree that that is a worthy aim, particularly in present circumstances. Because of the exigencies of the situation traffic wardens are already being employed very successfully on traffic duties. The order provides that in such circumstances it will be an offence to contravene traffic directions given by a traffic warden, who will also be empowered to require a driver to give his name and address. The order also extends the scope of the fixed penalty procedure as in Great Britain to cover additional offences, including the failure to display a current tax disc.
Following local government reorganisation the existing permissive powers of local authorities to incur expenditure on road safety will cease to be appropriate, and accordingly under Article 7 of the order the Ministry will assume direct responsibility for the road safety officer service and for the expenditure of road safety committees. This is broadly in keeping with the proposal to confer a statutory road safety duty upon the new county authorities in Great Britain.
There are at present four full-time road safety officers employed by local authorities

in Northern Ireland and it is proposed to increase this number to 11 as soon as possible with a view to providing a comprehensive programme of road safety education and training throughout the Province. I am sure that is most important. The efforts of the road safety officers will be concentrated mainly, although not exclusively, in schools where the most fruitful results seem likely to be obtained.
Ultimately, the long-term objective must be to provide future generations of road-users with a sound basic training in road safety covering the green cross code, cycle training and roadcraft. The raising of the school leaving age to 16 provides a golden opportunity to develop and expand roadcraft and driver training courses in schools and to impress firmly at an early stage the right attitudes towards driving which are of such importance.
The order also seeks to raise the standard of professional driving instruction by making provision for the compulsory registration of driving instructors in Northern Ireland. Registration is already compulsory in Great Britain, and the order will enable Northern Ireland to follow suit. At present, although the standards required of an instructor for registration as an approved driving instructor are the same as in Great Britain, the scheme is still purely voluntary.
Compulsory registration will not preclude the giving of free driving lessons or practice by a friend or relative, but professional instructors giving driving lessons for payment will be required to maintain the high standards expected of a registered instructor. The Association of Driving Instructors in Northern Ireland welcomes that requirement.
The order covers several other minor matters of a technical or procedural nature such as the giving of evidence by certificate as to the identity of drivers, a minor amendment concerning the distance a goods vehicle can be required to travel to a weighbridge and minor concessions in favour of invalid carriages. This is very much a miscellaneous provisions order, but I hope that I have said enough to show that it contains many provisions of importance to road safety in the Province which merit favourable consideration.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his kind words addressed to me.
We are discussing something which, under the terms of the Bill to which we have just given a Second Reading, would be a transferred power. Normally discussion would have been delayed until debate could take place in the Assembly when the order comes into operation. Road safety and the various transport regulations which we are discussing would seem eminently suitable matters to be discussed by the Assembly.
The Opposition would have urged that course of action had it not been for the figures which have been given by the Under-Secretary of State. This total of 8,397 road casualties is bad enough, but it almost pales into insignificance beside the terrible and grotesque tragedies taking place as a result of civil disturbances. Yet it is a terrible statement of human suffering—widows, orphans, bodies maimed and shattered. There is a tremendous burden on the State in the maintenance of decent social relationships among people who have suffered as a result of road accidents. It is also a great burden on the health services. Therefore, everything we can do to minimise road accidents should be done.
If the regulations raise the standards of road safety, as we hope they will, by putting them on a par with those in this country, one hopes that we will not be discussing them only in the Northern Ireland context but in an all-Ireland context. Ireland is a small country divided into two States, and visitors are constantly crossing the border. This subject would be eminently suitable for a new Council of Ireland, helping to foster a degree of co-operation by both sides which could help to break down tensions and suspicions.
Tachographs introduce the ugly head of the EEC again. About the only thing I have in common with the hon. Member for Antrim North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is our mutual suspicion of the Treaty of Rome.
In these regulations, we are discussing a miscellaneous collection of orders which would amount in normal circumstances to a large Bill. Such a Bill

would have to go to Committee for examination in detail. Again I can only reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said earlier—that we need a proper procedure in the House for discussing Northern Ireland legislation. It is not good enough that an item of legislation as important as this can go through without correction or amendment or proper discussion of many of its provisions.
Naturally, we support Article 3, which will allow to drive motor vehicles epileptics who are capable of having their terrible disease adequately controlled.
We also welcome the provision for vehicle testing. An interesting departure compared with this country is that a lot of the testing in Northern Ireland is to be done at Ministry centres and not at private garages. This will probably overcome many of the abuses which have occurred in many garages in this country where the MOT test has been perfunctorily carried out as a means of earning a quick buck for the garage owner. I emphasise that I am not making a general criticism of garage owners, many of whom are perfectly reputable. Nevertheless, one sees by the reduction in the number of garages entitled to make the tests that there has been considerable abuse. The Ministry of Transport in this country has come in for considerable criticism as a result of reducing the number of concessions, but its policy will be supported by all right-thinking people. One of the most terrible things that can happen to a driver is to drive his car having been hoodwinked into thinking that it has passed the MOT test when it has not, because its condition can result in an accident.
How many Ministry centres do the Government intend to establish, and where? How many registered qualified instructors are there to be? Over what sort of time-span do the Government see the 10-year test reducing to take in three-year-old vehicles? These are important questions about which we can reasonably ask for information, which can be given later if immediate replies are not possible.
Article 5 deals with "the spy in the cab", the tachograph. This will be introduced first for all new goods vehicles and all vehicles carrying dangerous


liquids by 1976, and for all other goods vehicles by 1st January 1978. While we appreciate the need for proper safety the Minister should not forget the great amount of industrial unrest caused in this country by the proposal to introduce tachographs. I should be obliged if he can give some information about the degree of consultation which the Department has had with the trade unions concerned, which will primarily be my own union, the Transport and General Workers' Union, and its sister union, the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union.
The extension of the power of traffic wardens under Article 6 is inevitable and in some ways proper. We have not had any serious criticism of traffic wardens in carrying out their new role in England, although when it was first introduced there were adverse comments from those who preferred to be given a ticket or ticked off by the "bobby". Traffic wardens have played a noble and important part in recent troubles and it is fitting that we should pay tribute to them. I hope that the time will come when they are not needed to take the place of the ordinary RUC constable.
Article 7 raises the important point of road safety committees. In the past the road safety committee has been the responsibility of the local authority. Now this is to go to the Ministry which has announced that it will appoint local councils to deal with the subject. We are entitled to know to what extent the Ministry intends to influence the composition of these committees. How many of the Ministry's representatives will be replaced by the representatives of local authorities and other local bodies? How many will be straight representatives of the Department?
The Minister mentioned an increase in the number of officers concerned with road safety, making a grand total of 11. Is this sufficient in the light of the figures he gave us about road casualties? Surely there is need for much more road safety education in Ireland. While I appreciate the need to begin this education in the schools, I suggest that there is a need for it to go on in other social institutions and organisations.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I am not quite sure of the position in this country, but in Northern Ireland we are fortunate in having a great many voluntary road safety committees. It may be that the idea of the 11 appointees is that they should co-operate with the voluntary bodies. In my constituency there is a lot of this useful voluntary work.

Mr. McNamara: I appreciate that point. There is, however, a need to know how the Government committees will work and to what degree they will integrate with the local set-up. One of the powers contained in the order is that of the Minister to give money to local organisations to pursue road safety education policies. There may be a degree of danger in taking that power away from the local authority, where a local dignitary or councillor may be particularly interested in road safety, and putting it within the control of central Government where road safety might be one of the first services to be cut in a mini-Budget or in an attempt to cool down the economy.
The whole House will support the compulsory registration of driving instructors and the maintenance of high standards, as will all bona fide driving instructors.
In Article 10 we see an important change in the law which the Under-Secretary of State may agree to refer to his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for consideration in Committee on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. Under the new regulation it is possible to contest the evidence given by a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the identity of drivers, owners and users. This we welcome. This provision would also be welcomed by any person who is affected by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill in regard to the admissibility of statements.
The Under-Secretary of State has referred to weighbridges, invalid carriages and miscellaneous matters dealt with by the order, and I will not refer to them in detail.
The Opposition welcome the order, look forward to the time when the matters it deals with will be discussed by the Northern Ireland Assembly and


hope eventually that they will be the subject of discussion and agreement in an all-Irish Council.

10.37 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: We are discussing a matter of grave importance to the whole community in Northern Ireland. I congratulate the Minister on his sleeplessness. He is the Minister who is always here at our late night sittings.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—who has been elevated to the Front Bench to speak on Northern Ireland matters—underlined certain subjects of vital importance. While I disagree with him almost across the board, I pay tribute to him for making contributions in debates on non-controversial matters which affect the whole community, unlike some hon. Members who attend only on controversial issues and are not interested in matters which have to do with the general public.
As a minister of religion I have been called to some sad and frightening episodes on the roads in Northern Ireland, and in my congregation are people who have been maimed for life as a result of tragedies on the roads. The figures given by the Minister underline the size of this problem.
I pay tribute to the work of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents which has gone a good job in Northern Ireland. I also associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) concerning the useful work done by road safety committees. It is essential that we should deal with the issue of licences and take cognisance of the state of health of people who are issued with licences, but it is also essential to attend to matters which contribute to the hazards on our roads. These have to do with the actual state of roads in Northern Ireland and the lighting of them.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be happy to take up this matter with his hon. Friends in the Ministry of Defence. My opinions of the British Army are well known in this House. But I must make one criticism. It is that Army vehicles without lights sometimes come out on to very dangerous intersections with no warning. This is

very serious. When a driver goes over the Albert Bridge, there is a sign which is not even illuminated saying "Please put out your lights". If the driver does not see that sign and does not put out his lights, he is immediately blinded by a searchlight, called into the side of the road, and reprimanded by the military. This is a very dangerous area. It is the Short Strand area.
I am probably not very popular with the residents of the Short Strand area. I have been taken out of my car, put against a wall and searched simply because I was not prepared to put out my lights until I had passed the intersection of Ravenhill Road and Short Strand. It is a very dark corner, and it is impossible to see without lights.
There have been numerous accidents at night because of unlit ramps. One of my constituents was almost killed, together with two of her family. She happens to be a Roman Catholic constituent of mine. She ran into an obstacle in the road which was not illuminated. Her car was wrecked, and she and her two children could have been seriously injured.
I say this without criticism. I know that soldiers do not want to show lights or to identify themselves to snipers. But in areas where the Army is operating, due warning should be given to drivers so that they may take the necessary precautions.
I ask my hon. Friend to pay attention to some very dangerous intersections and T-junctions which are unmarked in any way. They too contribute to many deaths in Northern Ireland.
I comment now on the periods during which people may drive goods vehicles. I appreciate that some provision is made in the order. I have had a terrible tragedy in my own congregation where the young and capable driver of a Shell-Mex lorry lost his life because the driver of another goods vehicle had worked too long hours and had fallen asleep at the wheel. To avoid a greater calamity, this young man crashed his own lorry and was killed in order to preserve the people in the other lorry, the driver of which had fallen asleep. I am pleased that steps are being taken in law to see that the drivers of heavy goods lorries are not compelled to work hours detrimental to their health and their capability to control the vehicles that they drive.
I want to say a word about traffic wardens and to ask my hon. Friend whether he can give any information about tickets issued by wardens. Are summonses served upon members of the public who have committed offences? I happen to know from the Police Committee in Belfast that some time ago 600 tickets were outstanding because the police authorities were unable to serve summonses. At the same time, people living in areas which are policed suffered and paid the penalty. It is hardly fair that one section of the comunity should have the law rigorously applied while another section escapes the penalties simply because they live outside the area where the police operate.
I welcome the Minister's remarks about those who drive invalid carriages. I am pleased to hear of any concession which can be given to these unfortunate people. But will the hon. Gentleman underline his assurance that only uniformed policemen can stop vehicles upon Northern Ireland roads? It appears from the Act that officials of the Ministry may be able to do that—

Mr. Peter Mills: Perhaps I might clear that up straight away. Yes, only police in uniform can stop vehicles for roadside checks, but Ministry examiners will be able to do the work of examination. I think that this is important.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I fully accept that. I am happy with that assurance. It would be unwise for people who are not clearly identified as members of Her Majesty's security forces to have the right to stop vehicles on the public highway, especially at this time.
This order comes as the result of the Macrory Report, because we are abolishing another of the powers of the local county councils. As the county councils and the two county borough councils of Londonderry and Belfast are going out of existence, the licensing powers are being taken away. In many ways I reject the undemocratic system imposed on local government by the Macrory proposals, but I believe that the Ministry of Home Affairs is the right authority in Northern Ireland to deal with the issue of licences.
In general, I welcome the proposals that have been put forward, but I regret that we have not time to look more

seriously at these matters and perhaps to offer amendments which would strengthen them in a constructive way. Unfortunately, we are bound by the present system. However, I look forward to the time when Ulstermen will be able to discuss these matters in a Parliament with real powers to legislate. It may be wishful thinking, but I hope that time will soon come.

11.47 p.m.

Mrs. Bernadette McAliskey: I imagine that if we were to stick to matters of road safety there would be little disagreement.
I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on his move to the Opposition Front Bench.
Having listened to the points made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I realise that these matters belong to the Ministry of Defence. I hope that the Under-Secretary will look into these matters and refer them to his right hon. Friend.
The Minister has given us figures for road accidents and casualties in Northern Ireland. Without seeming to make a political point—that is not my intention —may I ask whether he has figures showing Army involvement in road accidents, because from all sides of the political divide there have been allegations, with reasonable grounds, of what is tantamount to gross carelessness on the part of many members of the British Army when driving their vehicles.
While not agreeing with Army tactics in Northern Ireland, I accept that in times of bomb scares or civil disturbance its members have no choice but to drive their vehicles up one-way streets the wrong way or to drive without lights. But in normal circumstances, or as normal as they are, the Army must realise that it is bound by the same regulations as other road users. Its drivers must respect traffic light signals, speed limits, and all the other regulations by which civilians have to abide.
On defence, I should like to refer the hon. Gentleman to a check point in my constituency on the south side of Magherafelt which comprises a building about the size of a telephone kiosk. On


my return from Parliament I have gone along that road and not seen the check point because it has no illumination—yet it stands, like a cenotaph, in the middle of the road. It is a miracle that no security officer has been killed by somebody driving straight into him.
The high figure for road accidents in Northern Ireland is not totally unrelated to the situation there. A particular problem in my constituency, a rural area, is that, with the necessity to seal off the entrances to towns, some roads become totally unsuitable for fast and heavy traffic. The part of my home town in which I live was, until the trouble began, a relatively quiet backwater, but has now become a main thoroughfare. Only a few days ago a child of seven was crossing the road to the corner shop to spend a few pennies—something that, a year ago, would have been perfectly safe —when she was seriously injured and is now seriously ill in hospital.
I appreciate that these routes still have to be used, but, since the police are currently overstretched, there is ground for the use of temporary traffic lights and for additional speed limits. I should like to see speed limits on ramps, which are a hazard in themselves, signs warning of the existence of children on the approaches to housing estates which are now being used as through roads, and perhaps more traffic lights on crossings. 
On the main road between Cookstown and Omagh there is a new, very fast stretch which one might say is a credit to the local authority. But over the whole 26 miles of that stretch there is not one public telephone within a reasonable distance for road users. Therefore, if there is a serious accident on the road, the possibility of getting medical assistance is nil. One would then have to start looking, in a rural district, for a house with a telephone or a village with a public telephone. On many main roads communications do not keep up with road development. 
I join in the general welcome to the order. As I said, if we stuck to matters like this, we should probably never disagree.

10.53 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I agree that this is a long and

complicated order. It is unfortunate that we should have to deal with it so late at night after a long and tiring debate on the vital constitutional Bill, when hon. Members are obviously tired and have not had time to consider all the elaborate provisions in the order with the care they deserve.
As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, it would perhaps have been wise, if it had been possible, to have delayed all, or as much as possible, of this measure for the new Assembly to consider. I appreciate his point about how the number of casualties could mount if there were too much delay, but as the Assembly is to be elected in six or eight weeks and we have been considering the affairs of Northern Ireland for 14 months, is it so urgent to deal with the matter now?

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood. I said that, although this sort of matter would be part of the responsibilities of the Assembly, I considered that the order was so urgent that it should be dealt with now. On the hon. Gentleman's own arithmetic, even a delay of six to eight weeks until the election could result in 600 or 700 casualties. If we waited until the Assembly got down to these matters, which, on the prognostications of his hon. Friends, could take six to nine months, a very large number of people could be injured.

Mr. McMaster: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right and that the effect of passing the order will be to reduce dramatically the number of road casualties, but I am not altogether optimistic about that because, as the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) said, accidents are caused by many factors which are not regulated by the order.
I should like to add my thanks and appreciation for the care and attention that my hon. Friend has taken over detailed matters such as this while he has been looking after the affairs of Northern Ireland. We very much appreciate that, but there is one matter in particular that I should like him to consider.
We appreciate the difficulties faced by the Army in carrying out its duties in Northern Ireland. and particularly the


risks that its personnel run from snipers and other factors, but I have received complaints of accidents being caused by Army vehicles travelling in convoy not obeying ordinary traffic restrictions such as red traffic lights. One or two vehicles cross an intersection while the signal is at green, which then changes to red. Drivers on the other intersecting road start to move off, but find that they cannot get across because the remainder of the Army convoy is still on the move. That kind of situation adds to the casualty figures, and to avoid them the Army should, wherever possible, obey the ordinary rules of the road.
I am concerned about the provisions relating to the stopping of cars. Article 4 says:
For section 29 of the principal Act there shall be substituted
certain other sections, and subsection (3) of one of those sections says that an "authorised officer" means
a constable, or an officer of the Ministry, who is authorised by the Chief Constable or the Ministry respectively for the purposes of this section.
The purpose of that section is to permit such an authorised officer to stop a vehicle, but it appears from the wording of the order that it is not just a uniformed officer who is entitled to take such action. I know that my hon. Friend appreciates the importance of this provision in present circumstances, and I urge him to consider whether it should be amended.
That brings me to what I regard as the futility of the House debating the order. It contains important matters which we cannot amend. There is no way of amending the order. We have to take it or leave it. In my view the definition to which I have referred should be changed in order to cope with present circumstances.
I support what has been said about the improvements that have arisen from the application of the Macrory Report, resulting in the centralisation of the testing and licensing of vehicles, but another thought occurs to me on this question.
I accept the need for testing vehicles. One problem in Ulster is that "clapped-out" cars are used by terrorists for bomb planting and other unlawful purposes. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there is still a sufficient number of garages to

carry out the necessary repairs to vehicles which are found to be defective? I ask that because the terrorists have been making a special target of garages.
Has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary conducted any survey of the facilities available so that this provision will not be unduly onerous in present circumstances in Ulster? Business people are facing sufficient difficulties as things are. This additional burden comes when circumstances may make it very difficult. Vehicles could be off the road for a considerable time, and people could suffer financial loss as a result. Has any thought been given to compensation for owners of commercial vehicles which are tested and found wanting but which cannot be repaired because of shortage of garage space and trained mechanics?
Regarding the provision relating to drivers, how many authorised instructors are there in Ulster? Is there a sufficient number to cope with these new requirements?
Has my hon. Friend given thought to any more fundamental changes? On occasional trips abroad I have been very impressed by the power of police, especially on the Continent, to stop people for minor traffic offences and to fine them on the spot. I note that road traffic wardens are to have their powers increased by the order. Spot fines have some merit. They save the time of courts. They can save much delay. I should have liked to see Northern Ireland going ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom in this respect, for instance, in the police fining a person for speeding or crossing white lines. If the offender did not like it he could use his power of appeal to the court, as is done by motorists on the Continent. But this system can save the time of motorists who have inadvertently committed an offence and the time of others.
If the order had been presented as a Bill, in the course of ordinary parliamentary events, it would have been possible for a new clause to be added to cover this matter. However, I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would deal with that matter.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I welcome the order, the provisions of which are urgently needed. I regret that


this matter has to be dealt with by means of an Order in Council because there are so many important matters which ought to be considered at great length and in detail. That would have happened in the Stormont Parliament. We are faced tonight, as on other nights, with the fact that we are unable to have a discussion longer than 1½ hours and unable to table amendments to the order.
I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in paying tribute to the road safety committees. Over the years, they have done a splendid job. The thanks of the House is due to them.
Road accidents in Northern Ireland are running at a shocking level which requires the order to go through as quickly as possible. I believe that driving in Northern Ireland has been deteriorating over the last few years because the police are no longer able to keep their eyes on drivers. They are overburdened with having to deal with terrorists and they do not have time to deal with people who are driving in a dangerous or careless manner. They are too busy investigating serious criminal offences. I know from experience in my constituency and in Belfast that drivers are behaving in a manner which would warrant a summons for dangerous driving. 
I welcome the provisions dealing with invalid carriages which will bring the law into line with the law in the rest of the United Kingdom. I should like to see most laws which apply in Great Britain also applying in Northern Ireland, but I draw the line at the Industrial Relations Act, among others, which I should not like to see introduced into Northern Ireland in its present form. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) mentioned the question of the Common Market and of tachographs which are required to be installed in certain vehicles under Article 4(d) and (f). This is an issue on which people are bound to feel strongly and it is a matter which should have had the fullest possible discussion.
There is the question of employment of traffic wardens. It never was an offence in Northern Ireland to disobey the hand-signal of a warden, but the order brings the law in Northern Ireland into line with that of Great Britain on this point.

The warden in Ulster will have the same rights in future as his counterpart in Great Britain to demand the name and address of a driver. This is a good move and will help the police upon whom heavy demands are being made in the present situation. Of course, wardens do not spend very much time now looking after traffic bays. I do not think there are any traffic bays left in Belfast now, although there may be a few. Cannot wardens be used to help the police in other ways? I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will look into that. 
The provisions on driving instruction are welcome. I cannot understand why it has not been necessary in the past for driving instructors to have to register as in Great Britain. I am also curious to know what is the quality of driving instructors in Northern Ireland. Will my hon. Friend say something about that and tell us how many driving schools there are in Northern Ireland? We shall also wish to know whether there is a sufficient number of testing centres. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) was worried that the IRA was making a target of garages and no doubt it has blown up a number of garages. I hope that the IRA does not turn its attention to testing centres, because that would obviously present problems.
I have experienced the same problem as my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who referred to the sign on the Albert Bridge Road requesting drivers to switch off their car lights. I did not see the sign, and the Army was pretty annoyed. Many drivers are presented with that problem on that road, and there may be other places in Northern Ireland where drivers cannot see the sign and therefore come up against the Army.
There should be some provision about container lorries. In North Down they travel considerable distances along the road past various little ports to go up into Belfast or into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). The Government should establish a ferry service at Donaghadee in my constituency, which would take a tremendous load off the roads. That would benefit not only other drivers but those who use the container lorries.
I hope that the Minister will look personally at the standard of roads in Northern Ireland and introduce improvements as quickly as possible.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I wish briefly to raise three administrative matters. With the reorganisation of local government there is centralisation of the various licensing functions, both driving licence and motor tax licensing, under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Will the existing county council offices remain as issuing offices? Will there be many redundancies, particularly in the ranks of the senior staff of those offices?
At present motor vehicles can be taxed at certain Crown post offices. They usually work out at three a county. The present system is a great benefit, because it brings the issuing offices within easy reach of people in the various areas. Will these local facilities be maintained under the new set-up?
I turn next to the question of driving licence applications made by persons whose fitness to drive is open to question. It has been the practice for the finance and law committees of the county councils to vet such applications and make recommendations to the county council in full session. The final decision was thus made by the elected representatives. Is the function now to be transferred and performed by officers of the Ministry of Home Affairs?
Others have said that the order contains many matters of importance to various interests in Northern Ireland. I have received some representations from constituents. Many of them have taken the view that little can be done under an Order in Council procedure to secure changes in matters of substance. I content myself with drawing the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the purely administrative matters I have raised in this short debate.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: We have had an interesting debate on these very important matters. If I do not cover every point made, I assure hon. Members that I shall write to them. It is difficult to cover off the cuff every point made in a debate lasting one-and-a-half hours.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for welcoming the order and for many of the wise comments he made. As hon. Members have pointed out, this is a matter for the new Assembly, but there are one or two urgent reasons why it should be brought before the House now. One is the provisions stemming from the reorganisation of local government, which comes into effect on 1st October. It is important that the necessary amendments to legislation should be made before that date. Secondly, we are trying to bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in Great Britain.
Several of these matters relate to road safety, and, therefore, it is important that we should get them right. Time is not on our side. There are many things which should be done urgently now. If we wait for the new Assembly to be set up, it may be some time before what is required becomes operational. It is, therefore, important that we should get on with the task. If we save one life by dealing with the matter now instead of waiting for the setting up of the Assembly, it will be worth while. The casualty figures which I have given show an appalling loss of life. I probably travel more miles in the Province than any other Minister, and may I say, without being rude to Northern Ireland, that the number of cars which I have seen abandoned by the road or in a terrible state shows the need for taking steps to tighten up matters.
I agree with what has been said about the social consequences. We talk about the consequences of terrorism, which are bad enough, but the social consequences of the casualties on the roads are also very serious.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North mentioned the question of liaison between the north and south. Valuable exchanges of information can take place between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on such matters as accidents, speed limits, drink and driving, and teaching aids for road safety education.
I take the point which the hon. Gentleman made about the peculiar instruments called tachographs. We have not had any consultation about this matter,


but I promise the hon. Gentleman that we shall ensure that there is full consultation with the unions about it.
I am told that there are 15 testing centres. There will be an additional 16 examiners initially for annual testing of private cars. It would be unwise at this stage to forecast when tests will be extended to cover three-year-old cars, but we shall have to move towards this in time.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to the road safety committees. There are four of them at the moment, and the number will be gradually increased to perhaps 30 or more. The expenditure of the committees will be borne by the Ministry.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North also spoke about the state of the roads. The Province is concerned with all sorts of other matters and cannot get on with many of the tasks it would like to do. However, I take his point, and I am sure that the Ministry concerned will note what he and other hon. Members have said. I was interested when the hon. Gentleman, who is a spiritual minister, talked about a sudden shaft of light. My mind went back to the accounts which I have heard of others being blinded by a tremendous shaft of light. Certainly we will look into that matter.
In Northern Ireland lorry drivers are allowed to drive for 11 hours. We hope that it will come down to 10 hours and will be reduced gradually to meet the EEC standard of eight hours. There is nothing worse than driving a heavy lorry when very tired. I have had that experience. We must watch that matter carefully.
Reference was made to traffic wardens and the number of tickets which they serve and the amount of money which has not been collected. We try to do our best to ensure that the money is collected, but there are problems.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) because I think that this is the first time in the House that she has agreed with something which I have said. That is a pleasant thing to happen. She welcomed what we are trying to do. The Army has a difficult job to do in difficult circumstances. While it is easy to blame the

Army for a lot of accidents, that is not the true position. The Army tries to be as careful as possible and instruction is given how Army vehicles should be driven. I promise the hon. Lady that we will try to give the figures and the numbers of casualties caused as a direct result of the security forces. We will look into the question of the check point which she mentioned. As I have said, the Ministry concerned with roads will take note of what has been said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) said that there was not enough time to deal with these matters and that it would have been better had the matter been referred to the Assembly. I hope that I have answered that point clearly. If we can save one life or one casualty it is worth while dealing with the order now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East mentioned the manner of the Army's driving. I must point out that a driver of a military vehicle in some areas will not want to hang about. I have been out on patrol and I have prayed hard that the driver will put his foot down hard. It is not pleasant to idle or to toddle around certain areas of Belfast. We must realise the difficulties which the Army faces.
I think that the power to stop vehicles has been misunderstood. The effect of Article 29C(5) is that, although the Ministry examiners will have power to examine defective cars, they will not have the power to stop private cars. That will be done only by uniformed officers. They will try to work as a team. The uniformed constables will stop the cars and the qualified examiner will do the examining. I am sure that is right.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) about the general standard of driving in Northern Ireland at present. During the long journeys which I have undertaken I have been utterly terrified. Of course, the police are doing other jobs. It is difficult for the police to carry out all their obligations. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right about traffic wardens relieving the burden of the police and the RUC. It would be a good thing if we could get the wardens to take over some of the work carried out by the police and the R.U.C.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) asked about the rôle of county staffs in licensing. They will act as agents. Crown post offices will continue with the work they are doing now in licensing. I hope I have convinced the House that there is a sense of urgency about this matter. I want to see the order get under way as quickly as possible so that lives and casualties can be saved in Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Road Traffic (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND (AUDITOR-GENERAL'S AND COMMISSIONERS' SALARIES)

11.26 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): I beg to move,
That the Salaries (Comptroller and Auditor-General and Others) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved.
We turn now to an entirely different matter, which makes for an interesting variety today. The purpose of this order is to authorise an increase in salary for the holders of three posts in Northern Ireland and to provide for the authorisation of any future increases.
The offices involved are those of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and the Commissioner for Complaints. One officer at present holds the posts of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Commissioner for Complaints. He is paid for the latter post only, and this will, of course, continue for as long as he holds both. But provision must be made for the possibility that the two positions will be held by separate individuals at some time in the future.
The functions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are identical to their opposite numbers here, while the rôle of the Commissioner for

Complaints is to investigate complaints of maladministration by local or public bodies in Northern Ireland.
The increase proposed for all three posts is from £7,875 to £9,375 per annum with effect from 1st January 1972. This increase of £1,500, the new salaries and the effective date are all the same as those authorised and implemented last summer for permanent secretaries in the Northern Ireland Civil Service following acceptance by the Government of the Report of the Top Salaries Review Body—the Boyle Report. Also last summer, specific written assurances were given to the holders of the posts covered by this order that similar increases would be paid from the same date—January 1972—as soon as the necessary parliamentary approval was obtained.
But for the prorogation of the Northern Ireland Parliament, these increases would have been implemented about a year ago. In the event, however, they were delayed first by the unusual constitutional situation created by direct rule and the resulting pressures on parliamentary time, and later by a thorough review of the position which quite properly was undertaken in the light of the developing counter-inflation programme.
The payment of these increases to the two office-holders covered by the order is in full accordance with the terms of the counter-inflation policy introduced by the Government last autumn. The ruling paragraph is paragraph 13 of "A Programme for Controlling Inflation: The First Stage "(Cmnd. 5125), which deals with agreements existing on or before 6th November 1972. It says:
In all cases where a settlement was reached before the standstill, and the operative date of the increase was on or before 6th November, the increase can be implemented.
As hon. Members will know, wage awards covering a large number of workers have been implemented under that paragraph—notably the police and the local authority and electricity supply manual workers.
Although it was clear that the increases contained in this order were covered by paragraph 13 of Cmnd. 5125, we thought it right to defer legislation until the Government had been able to study the whole field of salaries and appointments which are affected, directly or consequentially,


by the Top Salaries Review Body but for which increases had not been implemented before 6th November. This involved consideration of a very large array of public service jobs—some part-time, some full-time—throughout the United Kingdom.
The order also provides that future increases will be authorised by Order in Council made by the Governor of Northern Ireland after a draft has been approved by the Parliament of Northern Ireland. While the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 has effect, the procedure will be by statutory rules made by the Secretary of State and subject to annulment by the Westminster Parliament. When the new arrangements contained in the Bill now before Parliament are in force, such an Order in Council would be made by the Secretary of State following a resolution by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Having listened to the Under-Secretary justifying the order, methinks that he protests too much.
The Government obviously feel very sensitive about this. It is a matter to which, in principle, we have no objection. The Government have a lot of explaining to do to the House, to the people of Northern Ireland and to the people of the United Kingdom. It is obviously right that these two distinguished servants of the State in Northern Ireland should not be penalised, nor should they be in receipt of wages which have been calculated at £625 less than the grade below them in the Northern Ireland Civil Service. They were caught by a number of accidents. To protect them, their salaries were part of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund, and then the Northern Ireland Parliament was prorogued before the necessary resolutions could be passed to implement the Boyle Report.
Before the Government could introduce resolutions into this House, they announced their freeze and then their £1 plus 4 per cent. I have argued too much about the anomalies and the unfairnesses created by the Government's decisions on the freeze and the £1 plus 4 per cent., all

based upon the Government's gross mishandling of the economy—

Mr. Peter Hardy: Hear, hear.

Mr. McNamara: I am glad to have the support of the Solicitor-General in that view.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): Oh?

Mr. McNamara: I thought I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman say "Hear, hear."

Mr. Peter Mills: It was the hon. Gentleman's colleague who did that.

Mr. McNamara: I beg the Solicitor-General's pardon. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) is a ventriloquist.
I have argued too much about what the Government's gross mishandling and unfairness have done to many workers to object to this matter being corrected. Nevertheless, an increase from £7,875 to £9,375 is an increase of £1,500 and, back. dated to 1st January 1972, it is a hefty increase to get in one's wage packet at the end of the month. It makes the £1 plus 4 per cent. a nonsense and it makes the Government's decision not to give the extra £1 to the Royal Ulster Constabulary when they gave it to the fire brigade and to prison officers very difficult to understand, particularly because of the dangerous and difficult rôle that the RUC has to play.

Rev. Ian Paisley: And the shipyard workers.

Mr. McNamara: Yes. For the shipyard workers—I am coming on to them —the steelworkers, boilermakers at Harland and Wolff and every person whose wages are negotiated annually to see a person getting an increase of £1,500 a year is a very difficult case to argue.
It will, of course, be argued that these two men are a special case and were caught by a chapter of accidents, but certainly the hospital workers were a special case.

Mr. Peter Mills: They are not.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister says that they are not special cases. I thought that the whole burden of his argument


was that they were caught by the prorogation of Stormont and the other matters he mentioned. We are not begrudging them their money but a number of points arise.
I refer to the Constitutional Bill which we have just read a Second time and to the Commissioners for Complaints and Administration. We are voting wages for the carrying out of a job which, while fine in concept, has not been so fine in practice. This is not because of any lack of zeal on the part of the Commissioner for Complaints but because of a fatal flaw in the legislation which said that he could look at individual cases of discrimination and not at patterns of discrimination. We hope that this will be remedied during the Committee proceedings on the Constitutional Bill.
We know also that the Commissioner's work was restricted because he could look only at public employment. We have had a statement from the Secretary of State about the committee to be set up. comprising representatives of trade unions and employers, aimed at preventing discrimination in private industry and commerce. We hope that when the time next comes for an increase to be voted for these officers their rôles in the public and private sectors—based upon the report of that committee—will be adjusted so as to eradicate what has been one of the blights in Northern Ireland.
The position of the Comptroller and Auditor-General appears to be anomalous, particularly in view of what the Minister of State said during the debate on the White Paper. The moneys voted to the Northern Ireland Assembly are to come straight from this House. All local taxes formerly levied under the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund are to be placed under our Consolidated Fund. We were told today that the comptroller is to report to us on the finances involved during the period of direct rule. Once the Assembly has been established he will report to that. This is a strange situation because the total moneys will be voted from this House, from our Consolidated Fund. It seems proper that the report should be made to this House. This may be a constitutional point with which the Government can deal in Committee.
I can see the need to have a proper accounting officer for the new Assembly. When it allocates resources, in so far as it is able to do so, those resources should be spent properly. Nevertheless the moneys will have been voted by this Parliament. When the procedures which previously existed—the Joint Exchequer Board and so on—are gone there will be an anomalous situation.
I understand that all the matters pending before Stormont was prorogued have been drawn to the attention of the Comptroller and that he has issued his report. I pay tribute to the work done by these distinguished servants of the Northern Ireland Parliament and the people. It is unfortunate that their legitimate wages increases should have been caught in this way. They have, perhaps, been more fortunate than most people in that they have not been restricted to £1 plus 4 per cent. I hope that they enjoy their extra £1,500 a year.

11.38 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am surprised that the Minister does not argue from the point, stated clearly in his brief, that these were special cases. If they were not I would not be standing here saying that the order should be agreed. I argue that these are special cases. I want to refer, however, to what has happened to the police, who are bearing the brunt of the action and who have been refused £1 a week, and to the position in the shipyards, where a productivity agreement has not been honoured by management, no matter what management may say. I am not arguing in favour of £1,500 a year for these gentlemen but the people we are talking about are entitled to it because they are a special case.

Mr. Peter Mills: These people were assured a long time ago that there would be an increase, not because of the work they did but because of the special problems in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad that the Minister agrees that they are entitled to the money because they are outside the freeze. I know a little about this matter because I was the last Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in Northern Ireland. I regret that the Stormont Government have never been called to


account for certain money that was spent. Before the Public Accounts Committee was disbanded it was investigating the leasing of a new property for the Ulster Office although many thousands of pounds had been lost in the payment of rent for offices that had been vacated and not been put on the market for sale. The matter was never gone into again because when the Public Accounts Committee was disbanded and its report was brought before this House there was no hon. Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency who had been on the Public Accounts Committee to say a word about it.
I agree that these men are eminent servants of the Crown, and it would be unfair for the House not to give its blessing to the order although the increase is a substantial one.
On 17th March 1972 the Review Body on Top Salaries recommended an interim increase of salaries for employees in senior grades—under-secretaries, permanent secretaries and the head of the Home Civil Service—to take effect from 1st January 1972. The Review Body said that it was in no doubt that the interim increases it recommended were the minmum required if confidence and fair treatment for the public service were to be maintained. Those recommendations were accepted and put into effect in June 1972 with restrospection to the beginning of the year.
The salaries of senior grades in the Northern Ireland Civil Service have always been fixed by reference to those of the senior grades in the Home Civil Service. New levels based on the Boyle recommendations agreed in July 1972—with the exception of the salaries of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Commissioner for Complaints and the Comptroller and Auditor-General—were paid with effect from 1st January 1972.
In July 1972 the officers I have listed were informed of the situation by the Second Secretary in charge of the Civil Service Management Division, Ministry of Finance for Northern Ireland, and they were assured that action would be taken to secure parliamentary approval to increased salaries. It should be remembered that if these gentlemen had remained in

their positions, they would have got these increases. However, they have taken other appointments. But there is a special obligation here which the Government should honour. What is more, one of these gentlemen will be retiring at the end of this year. If this payment is not made his pension rights will be affected. If that happened, it would be totally unfair, as I am sure the House will agree.
Subject to parliamentary approval to the increased charge on the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland, therefore, there appears to be no legal bar to the payment of increased salaries to these two officers with effect from 1st January 1972. The ethics of the case make it indefensible for us not to give our blessing to the order.
I felt that it was only right to make these matters clear. Some of us have had some harsh things to say about other people, especially those who are known as the working classes, though why they should be called that I do not know, because I am sure these other people work too. But working class people need to know why representatives who are sent here by them are doing this tonight. I want my constituents and the remainder of the people of Northern Ireland to understand that we are doing something which is honourable and defensible and something which we are obliged to do if we are to be honest in regard to these two gentlemen.
I come now to the office of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) raised a vital point. We have to deal with two sections. There is first the money which will be given to the Assembly so that it can exercise the powers transferred to it. That is all that the Assembly will be able to inquire into, anyway. Members of the Assembly will not be able to inquire into the spending of money which is authorised from here. So it seems that the Comptroller and Auditor-General will have to be responsible to two Committees. A Committee of the Assembly will have to scrutinise how the Executive spends money on the transferred services. But then there is the money spent by this Government to consider. It may be that the Government will say that their own Comptroller and Auditor-General will look after that. But if that happens the


duties of the Comptroller and Auditor-General in Northern Ireland will be reduced considerably.
I should like to hear what the Government see to be the future duties of the C & AG in Northern Ireland. It may be that my hon. Friend is not in a position to answer it now and that I am raising a constitutional issue which needs full investigation. I do not press him tonight for an answer. I prefer a considered answer. But this is an important point.
I know that the Under-Secretary is interested in Northern Ireland. He talked about "a shaft of light ", and was referring to the immediate conversion of a persecutor of the church. I happen to be a defender of the church, and I do not need converting in that sense. But if he was hoping that I was about to be converted to the policies of the Government on Northern Ireland, I can assure him that I am as militant as ever. We have had an exchange on these important matters which I hope will be helpful to the people of Northern Ireland so that they may know what they are doing.
It is evident from the composition of this House tonight that it is those hon. Members from Northern Ireland who are often referred to as being unreasonable who are present to make this vital contribution. Even the thunderous voice from the Alliance Party is absent. No trumpet has been blown for that party in this House tonight.

11.51 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I feel that I ought to answer one or two of the matters that have been raised, but I will certainly write and cover most of the other points, particularly the detailed point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
Naturally, on the surface this matter looks a little difficult, but it is not. These people were promised these salaries on 19th July 1970—a long time ago. Indeed, the matter was considered by the Commission, there was a draft Order in Council in early 1972, and it was delayed only for the various reasons about which we know. I agree with my hon. Friend that we have a real duty to see that these salaries are given to these gentlemen.
I am grateful to both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for the tributes that they have paid to the work of these gentlemen. I think that is perfectly correct.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North asked from which fund these salaries would come. They will come out of the Consolidated Fund, Northern Ireland. That is clearly shown in Article 5 of the order.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North—again, I am grateful for his support—is right that if these people had remained in their original positions they would have had the new salaries. Therefore, that is an added reason why we should honour what we are trying to do.
I am not sure whether future duties are a matter for this Government, but I will certainly write to the hon. Member to clear up that point.
For all these reasons, I believe it is right to commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Salaries (Comptroller and Auditor-General and Others) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

Ordered,
That the Lords Message [22nd May] communicating the Resolution, That it is desirable that the Land Compensation (Scotland) Bill [Lords] be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &amp;c., Bills, be now considered.—[Mr. Fox.]

Lords message considered accordingly.

Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Mr. Fox.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Ordered,
That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Fox.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Fox.]

Orders of the Day — LEGAL AID

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Bother Valley): The present arrangements for legal aid have clearly been of benefit to many thousands of our citizens who would otherwise have been unable to secure any degree of justice for themselves. For that reason I have no criticism of the principle which underlies our legal aid system. This has brought very necessary benefit to many people and to not a few lawyers.
However, I am less sure that the arrangements are as satisfactory as the underlying principle. In the last 20 years a number of improvements have been made but none of these has achieved anything like the reasonable flexibility which seems desirable, given that the problems, perhaps severe problems, which face the individual may vary enormously.
I hope that the major case that I bring forward will assist the argument in favour of further improvement and greater flexibility.
The experience of my constituent, Mr. William John Ellis, illustrates the deficiencies in our present system. I consider it a distressing case. Mr. Ellis left school at the age of 15. He is the eldest son of a miner in the village of Sunny-side, near Rotherham. When he left school jobs were not at all abundant, although not so scarce as they have become since. He tried one or two jobs before accepting employment as a window cleaner at the age of 17.
In the second week of his employment he was cleaning windows at Rotherham Town Hall when he sustained terrible injuries from a very bad fall. These injuries included spinal fractures, fractures of his nose, right thigh, both wrists, and both ankles. There were also internal injuries, the effects of which have not yet been surmounted. In addition, his heels and feet were dreadfully damaged. The accident occurred on 28th August 1968.

Just before then, his father had sustained a serious back injury in a pit accident.
Bill Ellis was on the danger list in hospital for some weeks and remained in hospital until March 1969. When he left hospital he was wearing callipers on both legs and was in a wheelchair. This young man made a good deal of progress but he also displayed a most commendable determination. He made up his mind that the wheelchair would be discarded at an early stage and that he would walk without it and without callipers. He now does so, although he has experienced great difficulty, and regrettably he has yet to find suitable work. I hope that his perserverance will bring at least the early reward of a job which will not overtax his present mobility.
After the accident, Billy's family discovered that his employer had not taken out adequate insurance cover. It may be felt that this should have been ascertained beforehand, but this sort of suspicion is not generally felt by ordinary folk. I do not think that the Solicitor-General will disagree with that opinion.
In view of this absence of cover and because of a suspicion that proper arrangements for safety appeared to have been omitted, Mr. Ellis' father consulted a firm of solicitors in Sheffield. The necessary procedure for the recovery of damages then commenced, with legal aid being granted. Legal aid was also granted to the employer. The long months of preparation and waiting for litigation slowly passed until the case came before the Sheffield Crown Court on 18th May last year.
At the commencement of the case, counsel for the plaintiff informed the court that the maximum sum which could be raised by the defendant was £750. The judge, Mr. Justice Wrangham, was asked to enter judgment for £750 with no order as to costs. The court was told that as far as the legal aid committee was concerned, it would be perfectly proper to have no order as to costs, although, as counsel said, the committee was regrettably unable to provide any assurance that it would not extract the costs from the amount available. However, the judge was informed that if he expressed a view about the matter, that was something that the committee would take into consideration so far as it felt able to do so.
Counsel for the defendant consented to this approach and commented that he was grateful that the court had been able to sit half an hour late so that the matter could be "thoroughly investigated".
Mr. Justice Wrangham then commented upon the settlement. He said that my constituent had sustained a very serious accident and that if the case were proved he might be entitled to considerable damages, but that he would have to he content with £750, that being all the defendant could afford.
The judge then said that counsel for the plaintiff had communicated with the legal aid authorities and that they were in a position to authorise him not to ask for costs from the defendant. He properly said that a successful plaintiff should pay for any costs which had been incurred by the public out of the damages awarded to him, but he went on to say that this was a very exceptional case, and expressed the hope that in view of the exceptional circumstances the legal aid authorities would consider allowing the plaintiff to recover his damages without any substantial contribution to the costs incurred on his behalf.
Mr. Ellis then expected to receive all or the greater part of £750. I understand that he had accepted the advice he had received on this matter. His counsel understood that the legal aid authorities had agreed to allow Mr. Ellis to receive the full, or virtually the full, amount. Some time elapsed, and then my constituent learned that the full costs would be deducted. To his astonishment he found that the costs amounted to £596·52, leaving him with the sum of £153·48.
He was then informed that his best course of action was to approach me, as his Member of Parliament, as I would have the opportunity to request the Lord Chancellor to make an exception in this case and to allow the deduction of the whole or part of the costs to be waived. The Law Society wrote to Mr. Ellis's solicitors on 13th December 1972 and suggested that the matter be taken up with the Lord Chancellor, who is the only person who is able to rule that there should be no charge.
I had not heard of such an arrangement before but, then, I am a layman,

constantly reminded of the complexities of the law and sometimes of its rather high level of remuneration. I wrote to the Lord Chancellor immediately. I received a most full and courteous reply, in due course. This very fairly made the point that the deduction of costs was mandatory and that the person who receives legal aid should not be better placed than any other litigant. This means that Mr. Ellis might still have received only £153·48 had he acted from his own resources entirely.
However, it might be right to suggest that had the former employer not been granted legal aid he might have been much more likely to have made a substantial offer at a much earlier and therefore less expensive stage. Thus, the effect of both parties being in receipt of legal aid might have militated against the interests of Mr. Ellis.
In saying that the suggestion that costs could be waived was ill-founded, the noble Lord also said that it was
saddening to dash the false hopes so un fortunately raised".
He went on to refer in his letter to the Pearson Commission, the Royal Commission recently set up to consider civil liability which may make recommendations on the subject of injuries, including those received in employment—possibly recommending a compulsory employer liability insurance. That would seem entirely desirable, and one hopes that there will be such a recommendation and that it will be implemented.
That may lead to a happier situation in which the sort of experience which my constituent suffered would be even more infrequently encountered. I believe that such an improvement is essential, for otherwise people might be tempted to take a rather cynical view and say that a few hours' work by members of the hon. and learned Gentleman's profession could be given a greater value than the amount received to compensate for months of pain and years of disability for an ordinary young man from a miner's home, and that sort of comment is being made now in the village of Sunnyside. It may be that such a view would be wrong. However, in this case it is fair to say that Mr. Ellis's experience illustrates a very real need.
Unfortunately, one cannot be confident that the need will soon be resolved. When the Prime Minister announced in the House the setting up of the Pearson Commission in reference to the thalidomide cases, he said that the commission could consider any action that Parliament might take in the meanwhile. I interpret that as meaning that the Government could well take whatever action they wish in advance of the Pearson Commissions' report, and I suggest that if they took such action they would be acting wisely.
Following the Prime Minister's announcement, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition the right hon. Gentleman said that he thought he had made it plain that there could be no retrospective recommendations and that nothing in the commission would prejudice any action which others might take in a particular case. I believe that that reinforces my own interpretation of the earlier remarks to which I have referred. I believe that something could be done.
In a further answer during the exchanges following that announcement the Prime Minister referred to the Lord Chief Justice's comments on relevant matters in 1965 and again in 1967. It is now 1973—eight years since the first of the comments made by the Lord Chief Justice in 1965. The Pearson Commission may report in 1974. One hopes so. It may be years after that before the formidable legislation to implement whatever recommendations the Pearson Commission makes could complete its passage through Parliament.
In this situation it seems right to suggest that there should be much swifter improvement in our legal aid arrangements so as to provide a greater capacity for flexibility now.
I realise that Billy Ellis himself cannot benefit from any improvements that may be made. He realises that, too. But he said to me the other day that he would feel a good deal better about things if his experience led to others avoiding his own misfortune. That is a most commendable attitude. This young man's bearing and conduct, despite his dreadful injury and disability, justify consideration. I believe that any consideration of his case will lead one to the firm

conclusion that the present situation is quite intolerable and that we ought not to have to wait for years, perhaps, for essential progress.
Perhaps I might briefly illustrate the need for flexibility by referring to another constituency case with which I am currently involved. A widow in my constituency believes that the tenant of part of a small field which is her only real resource has taken over a larger part of the land than that which he rents and which is covered by a tenancy agreement. I understand that the tenant has erected buildings on this land without planning permission. The whole affair is astonishing.
However, the widowed lady is unable to defend her interests as she has been refused legal aid. I am told that aid has been refused because her asset, the field, exceeds £1,200 in value. So in order to defend this field she would first have to sell it. That is not a pleasant prospect when the ground itself could be said to be in dispute.
When I wrote to the tenant's solicitor, who, unfortunately, acted for both parties in drawing up the tenancy agreement—which I could describe as rather unsatisfactory—the first reply that I received was, I considered, unacceptable, as it suggested that this was not a matter for my interest. The second letter I received was a little better, but the opinion expressed was that the matter was being properly dealt with. Yet it is known that the lady cannot secure aid and thus cannot at present pursue the case. Meanwhile, I understand that further building has taken place without planning permission.
That is a rather simplified and brief version of a somewhat complicated story, but it also illustrates that the present system of legal aid is imperfect.
This case and the case of Mr. Ellis certainly seem to show an undue rigidity in the arrangements, and this may be most harmful to the individual placed in unusual difficulty or exceptional circumstances. This inflexibility can be most harmful to society as a whole as well as to the individual who may need help.
The improvement need not be very expensive for, as Mr. Justice Wrangham said, the case of Mr. Ellis is very exceptional. Be that as it may, improvements


that will provide a little more flexibility in our legal aid arrangements seem to be urgently desirable.

12.8 a.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers): The whole House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) for raising this problem—or these problems, as they turn out to be. These problems are not unknown to those concerned with the administration of legal aid in the courts. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for his courtesy in giving me a great deal of notice of the points that he would be raising tonight.
It would be of no help to Mr. Ellis if I told the House that our system at present says to a plaintiff that he must take the defendant as he finds him. That means that if one has an uninsured defendant, or an uninsured employer, as was the case here, all that one can hope to recover from him, if one succeeds in one's action against him, is what he is worth in his own right, without the benefit of insurance. Usually, and fortunately, employers are covered by insurance, but too many small employers, particularly in trades such as window cleaning, are prepared to take the risk because they do not want the burden of the premiums.
This happens in a wider sphere. It happens, for example, with dangerous trees which may fall and hit pedestrians and motor cars when the occupier of the land on which the tree stood is not insured. It may happen when someone is injured by a cyclist, because the cyclist is usually not insured.
Some years ago, when I was living in a flat on the fourth floor in Westbourne Terrace, my eldest son, who was only 5 at the time, suddenly developed a tendency to throw his Dinky toys out of the window. It occurred to me that if one of our top surgeons happened to be walking down Westbourne Terrace and had his skull fractured by a Dinky toy the claim against me could go into many thousands of pounds. I managed to get cover at a very cheap price, if I had not been covered and there had been a claim for £50,000 that surgeon would have had to have taken me as he found me in those days—and probably still

now—quite unable to satisfy any demand for that amount of money.
In the case of Mr. Ellis it was agreed on all sides that the agreed judgment for £750 was in an ordinary sense totally inadequate. But it was the sum that all sides agreed, and to which the judge assented, a sum which was the maximum which could be found from that employer. That being the case, it was a pointless exercise to add to that sum any additional figure by way of costs against him, because it would have been a valueless order. The Law Society was telephoned and properly asked whether, in the circumstances, it agreed that there should be no request for an order for costs. The Law Society agreed.
Counsel may well have understood that the legal aid authorities would allow Mr. Ellis to take the whole sum. As I understand it from the inquiries that I have made, what really happened was that the secretary was not prepared to say that he would not consider it at all, because it was about to come before the judge. In reality the judge, counsel and the solicitors should have been in no doubt about the position. The position has been clear for some time and it follows the Act itself, which makes it mandatory in circumstances such as these that when there is an outstanding balance due to the Legal Aid Fund in respect of costs incurred by the plaintiff in successfully obtaining his judgment, that sum is a first charge upon any property that he recovers, and this has been made clear a number of times and was repeated in 1959. It particularly applies where it is suggested that counsel for parties to a settlement have sought and obtained the approval of the judge to the settlement, subject to a recommendation by the judge that those responsible should consider refraining from enforcing a statutory charge.
The practice note to the Bar states:
The Bar Council have now been informed that as the statute creating the charge provides no exceptions, The Law Society cannot obtain any waiver of the charge in future cases.
This is based upon the Act and upon a case which was tried in the Court of Appeal in 1960 in which the then Master of the Rolls, Lord Evershed said:
By the statute, the Society,"—


that is, the Law Society—
which is responsible to account to Parliament for the administration of the fund, has a first charge on any property recovered in an action. In this case it would be a charge on the sum of damages. So far as I can see, the Society, in execution of its public duty, would be bound to enforce the charge: otherwise the amount concerned would fall upon the taxpayers generally.
That has always been the view of Section 3 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949.
It is unfortunate that in the case of Mr. Ellis, who is a layman and could not be expected to appreciate the position, the solicitor, counsel and, indeed, the learned judge all appear to have overlooked the position. In fact, the £750 had been agreed before the telephone call to the Law Society, so in reality his position was in no way diminished.
I should like to make it clear that the £750 that Mr. Ellis recovered was a figure agreed simply because that was all that the defendant could find. Thereafter a large amount was deducted in respect of his costs because the Law Society was bound to do it. Under the Act, it had no alternative. The matter has been under consideration for some time. But there is no question of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor being able to waive the amount.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make clear the position on costs to his constituent, whose feelings I can so readily appreciate and sympathise with. The sum awarded in costs does not just go to the lawyers. In a case involving serious injuries, such as Mr. Ellis suffered, there may well also be a question of liability. I know little about the facts, but I presume that a ladder broke, or something of that kind. In his case there would have been witnesses, probably experts who examined the ladder, and certainly several doctors, who would have had to advise the judge as to the extent of the injuries, which were very grave, if the case had been contested, and their fees would have had to be paid. All those figures, which come to a huge amount in proportion to the rest, would have been included in the total. I should not like it to be left in the minds of anyone who listens to the debate, of the hon. Member, who has behaved so reasonably throughout, or of his constituent,

that it was simply money all going into the lawyer's pockets. I do not know the exact details, but I suspect, having read the judgment and what happened, that quite a small percentage of the total sum went to the lawyers.
The problem is the basic problem of the whole concept of legal aid. What has always been intended since 1949 in cases in which a litigant is unable to fund his own action is that he should be put into exactly the same position as someone who could pay. If the costs incurred in a tragic case of this kind, with an uninsured defendant, were waived, so that the taxpayer paid them, that would mean putting the legal aid plaintiff into a better position than someone who did not have the benefit of legal aid.
The idea has always been that it is unjust that such a person, by reason of his limited means, cannot ordinarily bring proceedings. Parliament has said "We must put him into the same position as someone who has funds, but we cannot put him into a better position." It is well known that tragic cases are inclined to make bad law. If such a person is put into a special position he is given a special advantage over those who pay their own way.
The matter has exercised all those concerned with legal aid ever since the 1949 Act. But every time it is examined, every time these hard cases are considered, with great sympathy, one returns to the position where one says "If we do it that way, it will mean that he has been given an advantage over and above the person who would ordinarily pay his own way."
That has been the concept and philosophy behind this case. It does not mean that there is a hard approach or that anybody lacks sympathy for Mr. Ellis, who clearly suffered grievous injuries, through no fault of his own, as a result of an employer not taking the elementary and necessary precaution of insuring himself.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me some warning of the second case which he raised, although not enough, I am afraid, to be able to give him an answer, save to say this. The account given to the House tonight appears to disclose a situation which will


give rise to anxiety to anybody who hears it. The best that I can say is that I have listened with interest and anxiety to what has been said. The case certainly requires investigation, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the facts will be drawn to the attention of my noble

and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor at the earliest possible moment.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Twelve o'clock.